|
Cool. I'll prolly stick to XP anyways for compatibility issues, and then once everything gets made and setup for windows 7 I'll switch over purely for DX10 
P.S. Did you guys see that future nvidia drivers (185(?)) are going to support Ambient Occlusion!
Ambient occlusion is an artificial lighting method that sends rays from polygons and determines how many of the rays intersect with other polygons, and darkens polygons whose rays intersect a lot.
Sounds complicated (and it is for the computer), but really it just gives models a really nice effect which darkens concave areas and lightens convex areas, which adds realism.
From the screenshots I've seen though, it looks like it's only an object-to-object ambient occlusion, so one object won't ambiently occlude on itself. So in other words it won't make straight up models look better, but the space between two models will be shaded nicely, kind of like a more advanced version of shadows.
|
On January 12 2009 17:39 IzzyCraft wrote:Core brand wasn't the first dual core =p x2 wasn't even the first dual core business platform IBM's were first. I also count 2 core emulation as dual core you know that nice little HT because that shit actually boosted performance quite well. Basically if you bought a comp back then and you opened task manager and didn't see 2 threads you got jacked just a bit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athlon_64_X2From 2005 From the mouth of the demon it self http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20050418comp.htmWhich was made available from late 2004 via demo and devs it takes about 3 months in a comp world for something new to become dumbed down and main stream basically a business cycle Plz don't make posts in which you only choose to bash another poster esp ending it with cheers it's a more jack ass way of saying "you got served". It's hard for me to distinguish time for the computer world just because everything happens a lot faster but don't doubt me I'm usually right. Dual core was considered mainstream but people could easily still buy older computers =p Oh yeah don't say just because it's a laptop laptops those old where more or less a desktop chopped and blocked they had micro ATX mobos in them. People often just buy less then they could get often when being sold computer it's kind of sad.
So basicaly your problem is just that you do not know how to count ?
Athlon_64_X2 -> the first one was the Toledo and it was released end of April 2005 which is less then 4 year ago. So no, I repeat dual-cores were not mainstream 4 year ago even for desktops...
Same for Intel from your nice article :
<<
SANTA CLARA, Calif., April 18, 2005 - Intel Corporation announced that computer manufacturers Alienware*, Dell* and Velocity Micro* today started selling desktop PCs and workstations based on Intel's first dual-core processor-based platform.
>>
A Pentium 4 does Hyperthreading (SMT) but that is not SMP.
|
On January 12 2009 19:42 Beamo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2009 17:39 IzzyCraft wrote:Core brand wasn't the first dual core =p x2 wasn't even the first dual core business platform IBM's were first. I also count 2 core emulation as dual core you know that nice little HT because that shit actually boosted performance quite well. Basically if you bought a comp back then and you opened task manager and didn't see 2 threads you got jacked just a bit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athlon_64_X2From 2005 From the mouth of the demon it self http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20050418comp.htmWhich was made available from late 2004 via demo and devs it takes about 3 months in a comp world for something new to become dumbed down and main stream basically a business cycle Plz don't make posts in which you only choose to bash another poster esp ending it with cheers it's a more jack ass way of saying "you got served". It's hard for me to distinguish time for the computer world just because everything happens a lot faster but don't doubt me I'm usually right. Dual core was considered mainstream but people could easily still buy older computers =p Oh yeah don't say just because it's a laptop laptops those old where more or less a desktop chopped and blocked they had micro ATX mobos in them. People often just buy less then they could get often when being sold computer it's kind of sad. So basicaly your problem is just that you do not know how to count ? Athlon_64_X2 -> the first one was the Toledo and it was released end of April 2005 which is less then 4 year ago. So no, I repeat dual-cores were not mainstream 4 year ago even for desktops... Same for Intel from your nice article : << SANTA CLARA, Calif., April 18, 2005 - Intel Corporation announced that computer manufacturers Alienware*, Dell* and Velocity Micro* today started selling desktop PCs and workstations based on Intel's first dual-core processor-based platform. >> A Pentium 4 does Hyperthreading (SMT) but that is not SMP.
Clearly it's not how to count it's what to count you exclude things i include things frankly to the avg user you could sell off multi core emulation as real dual tri quad core and they wouldn't know the difference and such I responded in the same manner. I say mainstream you think bargain bin budget.You also seem to be on a man-hunt to take one fact that is a we bit off by your sight but the point still stands =p anyways he can run windows 7 on it pretty easily probably on the easy to see profiles.
On January 12 2009 19:25 BluzMan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2009 17:57 IzzyCraft wrote:
I guess we have to repeat say this again.
XP if faster because its about 8 years old guess what is even faster then XP windows 3.1 lets play with that it's even simpler too.
Please don't inhibit growth! People love growth in the computer business it is built on constantly updating cutting cost and increasing power. The industry wont be nearly as interesting without it.
Also in about 2 years you'll find it very hard to live with XP when microsoft cuts support try to get the updates after formatting your drive then or activating it. It's not windows 98 with no activation. Your view is really inept. People love XP because it's faster than both Win98 and Vista. It's built upon the NT kernel which is an awesome thing and most of it's overhead compared to WinNT is due to increased stability and features that are actually useful. Your comparison is pointless since for modern applications XP is 1000 times faster than 3.1. It's not about letting something grow or not. It's more about that new Windows versions add a significant (actually, a horrendous) memory and speed overhead for no fucking reason. I would gladly get Vista if that overhead was backed up by a slight glimmer of concise thought, but it is not. With NT kernel we got a stable file system (google FAT and what happens if you switch off power during allocation table writing), we got a remedy to DLL hell and other nice things that are actually useful on the system level. What does Vista offer? DEP? Don't try to be kidding me. The only useful thing I found in W7's featurelist is native system support for *.vhd. That is useful, indeed. Others are just eye-candy, I don't care how the new taskbar looks or how large icons are, I took my time to remember the hotkeys.
Lol what you do wiki random facts to spout off at me to act superior too bad because my confidence is unwavering, esp with such weak arguments you gave.
XP is not faster then Vista in throughput performance on drives. XP is undoubtedly slower in HDD performance due to Vista and further continuance of improvement in HDD management practices.
XP is loads slower then Vista and Windows 7 in handling multiple threads XP has a weird support originally designed for basically Intel's hyper threading.
As computers continue to advance the gap of performance between Vista/7 and XP will be very prevalent imo by the time windows 7 comes out XP will be considered too slow to be on a modern machine.
Lol FAT! isn't even considered viable past a flash system of storing files if you are formatting a HDD on vista in FAT wtf is wrong with you obviously that computer was never meant to run Vista.
Also just the amount of ignorance you have DEP is in XP you just ... go to system properties advance tab click on performance settings guess what you see. Data Execution Prevention the only diff is that the default for XP is only windows essential files etc while vista covers all aspects by default.
That eye candy guess what too many people love eye candy to give it up elitist users can turn it off if you want but if you gonna complain just because it looks nicer i should consider it not professional and trash it beyond belief, maybe just maybe you should consider broadening what you take in for information to judge something just a wee bit, else you just gonna make an ass out of yourself.
Oh yeah if you respond to this with some sorta you spelled that wrong omg your grammar sucks it would just further prove that you have nothing behind your anger and bias aggression against windows 7 and vista and your points are clearly invalid as such should be.
|
On January 12 2009 19:49 IzzyCraft wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2009 19:42 Beamo wrote:On January 12 2009 17:39 IzzyCraft wrote:Core brand wasn't the first dual core =p x2 wasn't even the first dual core business platform IBM's were first. I also count 2 core emulation as dual core you know that nice little HT because that shit actually boosted performance quite well. Basically if you bought a comp back then and you opened task manager and didn't see 2 threads you got jacked just a bit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athlon_64_X2From 2005 From the mouth of the demon it self http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20050418comp.htmWhich was made available from late 2004 via demo and devs it takes about 3 months in a comp world for something new to become dumbed down and main stream basically a business cycle Plz don't make posts in which you only choose to bash another poster esp ending it with cheers it's a more jack ass way of saying "you got served". It's hard for me to distinguish time for the computer world just because everything happens a lot faster but don't doubt me I'm usually right. Dual core was considered mainstream but people could easily still buy older computers =p Oh yeah don't say just because it's a laptop laptops those old where more or less a desktop chopped and blocked they had micro ATX mobos in them. People often just buy less then they could get often when being sold computer it's kind of sad. So basicaly your problem is just that you do not know how to count ? Athlon_64_X2 -> the first one was the Toledo and it was released end of April 2005 which is less then 4 year ago. So no, I repeat dual-cores were not mainstream 4 year ago even for desktops... Same for Intel from your nice article : << SANTA CLARA, Calif., April 18, 2005 - Intel Corporation announced that computer manufacturers Alienware*, Dell* and Velocity Micro* today started selling desktop PCs and workstations based on Intel's first dual-core processor-based platform. >> A Pentium 4 does Hyperthreading (SMT) but that is not SMP. Clearly it's not how to count it's what to count you exclude things i include things frankly to the avg user you could sell off multi core emulation as real dual tri quad core and they wouldn't know the difference and such I responded in the same manner. I say mainstream you think bargain bin budget.You also seem to be on a man-hunt to take one fact that is a we bit off by your sight but the point still stands =p anyways he can run windows 7 on it pretty easily probably on the easy to see profiles.
Just so you know :
Mainstream (terminology): generally used to mean that which is ordinary or usual with familiar appeal to the masses.
I was not questioning how you counted, just wondering if you knew how to count to 4...
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
On January 12 2009 19:49 IzzyCraft wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2009 19:42 Beamo wrote:On January 12 2009 17:39 IzzyCraft wrote:Core brand wasn't the first dual core =p x2 wasn't even the first dual core business platform IBM's were first. I also count 2 core emulation as dual core you know that nice little HT because that shit actually boosted performance quite well. Basically if you bought a comp back then and you opened task manager and didn't see 2 threads you got jacked just a bit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athlon_64_X2From 2005 From the mouth of the demon it self http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20050418comp.htmWhich was made available from late 2004 via demo and devs it takes about 3 months in a comp world for something new to become dumbed down and main stream basically a business cycle Plz don't make posts in which you only choose to bash another poster esp ending it with cheers it's a more jack ass way of saying "you got served". It's hard for me to distinguish time for the computer world just because everything happens a lot faster but don't doubt me I'm usually right. Dual core was considered mainstream but people could easily still buy older computers =p Oh yeah don't say just because it's a laptop laptops those old where more or less a desktop chopped and blocked they had micro ATX mobos in them. People often just buy less then they could get often when being sold computer it's kind of sad. So basicaly your problem is just that you do not know how to count ? Athlon_64_X2 -> the first one was the Toledo and it was released end of April 2005 which is less then 4 year ago. So no, I repeat dual-cores were not mainstream 4 year ago even for desktops... Same for Intel from your nice article : << SANTA CLARA, Calif., April 18, 2005 - Intel Corporation announced that computer manufacturers Alienware*, Dell* and Velocity Micro* today started selling desktop PCs and workstations based on Intel's first dual-core processor-based platform. >> A Pentium 4 does Hyperthreading (SMT) but that is not SMP. Clearly it's not how to count it's what to count you exclude things i include things frankly to the avg user you could sell off multi core emulation as real dual tri quad core and they wouldn't know the difference and such I responded in the same manner. I say mainstream you think bargain bin budget.You also seem to be on a man-hunt to take one fact that is a we bit off by your sight but the point still stands =p anyways he can run windows 7 on it pretty easily probably on the easy to see profiles. Show nested quote +On January 12 2009 19:25 BluzMan wrote:On January 12 2009 17:57 IzzyCraft wrote:
I guess we have to repeat say this again.
XP if faster because its about 8 years old guess what is even faster then XP windows 3.1 lets play with that it's even simpler too.
Please don't inhibit growth! People love growth in the computer business it is built on constantly updating cutting cost and increasing power. The industry wont be nearly as interesting without it.
Also in about 2 years you'll find it very hard to live with XP when microsoft cuts support try to get the updates after formatting your drive then or activating it. It's not windows 98 with no activation. Your view is really inept. People love XP because it's faster than both Win98 and Vista. It's built upon the NT kernel which is an awesome thing and most of it's overhead compared to WinNT is due to increased stability and features that are actually useful. Your comparison is pointless since for modern applications XP is 1000 times faster than 3.1. It's not about letting something grow or not. It's more about that new Windows versions add a significant (actually, a horrendous) memory and speed overhead for no fucking reason. I would gladly get Vista if that overhead was backed up by a slight glimmer of concise thought, but it is not. With NT kernel we got a stable file system (google FAT and what happens if you switch off power during allocation table writing), we got a remedy to DLL hell and other nice things that are actually useful on the system level. What does Vista offer? DEP? Don't try to be kidding me. The only useful thing I found in W7's featurelist is native system support for *.vhd. That is useful, indeed. Others are just eye-candy, I don't care how the new taskbar looks or how large icons are, I took my time to remember the hotkeys. Lol what you do wiki random facts to spout off at me to act superior too bad because my confidence is unwavering, esp with such weak arguments you gave. XP is not faster then Vista in throughput performance on drives. XP is undoubtedly slower in HDD performance due to Vista and further continuance of improvement in HDD management practices. XP is loads slower then Vista and Windows 7 in handling multiple threads XP has a weird support originally designed for basically Intel's hyper threading. As computers continue to advance the gap of performance between Vista/7 and XP will be very prevalent imo by the time windows 7 comes out XP will be considered too slow to be on a modern machine. Lol FAT! isn't even considered viable past a flash system of storing files if you are formatting a HDD on vista in FAT wtf is wrong with you obviously that computer was never meant to run Vista. Also just the amount of ignorance you have DEP is in XP you just ... go to system properties advance tab click on performance settings guess what you see. Data Execution Prevention the only diff is that the default for XP is only windows essential files etc while vista covers all aspects by default. That eye candy guess what too many people love eye candy to give it up elitist users can turn it off if you want but if you gonna complain just because it looks nicer i should consider it not professional and trash it beyond belief, maybe just maybe you should consider broadening what you take in for information to judge something just a wee bit, else you just gonna make an ass out of yourself. Oh yeah if you respond to this with some sorta you spelled that wrong omg your grammar sucks it would just further prove that you have nothing behind your anger and bias aggression against windows 7 and vista and your points are clearly invalid as such should be.
Your grammar is atrocious.
|
For all those people who speak about Windows 7 being just a revamped Vista:
Well duuuh!
Vista's reputation is so crippled in general public, that the best thing MS can do is release a new OS asap and present it as anything but Vista-like. The majority of the people who were annoyed by Vista will be 100% satisfied I presume, because I think MS got some massive Vista surveys running and will change the little things that made Vista "bad" for the noobs (meaning general public, not derogatory).
To the guys who bash Vista as if it was the devil himself:
Wake up and smell the coffee, buy a dual core comp with 2+ gigs of ram and learn to tune your experience.
I don't know about you, but my Vista business
- boots in 25 seconds (not extraordinary, but surely not poor, certainly better than my previous XP)
- there are no annoying popups if you turn the appropriate manager off (but leave it on, it can save your files, one more click won't kill you)
- performance is without any glitches or freezes, I can play e.g. dota with ventrilo on and then realize I've got photoshop and dreamweaver running in the background
- I haven't had a BSOD or any other fatal error I can remember in the nearly 2 years I own this shit!
All it takes is to reinstall the OS once a year and tune it accordingly (3 hours) and then maintain some order in the system, e.g. delete temp files/unused apps every once a week/month (10 minutes).
For the record, the computer is a Lenovo x61 ultraportable (2ghz core2duo, 2gb ram) with onboard intel graphics(!).
Windows 7 is not about adding some breathtaking new features and turn bad OS into good in reality. It is about making some fine adjustemens, hopefully in the right direction (like, it will be more accessible for the low cost low power netbook crowd) and making it seem like it's better.. because Vista is not bad, it just seems bad because of vocal stupid people. Again, maybe you've got some personal bad experience.. just ask yourselves if you have the appropriate hardware or skills for maintaining the system.
|
On January 12 2009 18:58 RamenStyle wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2009 18:10 strongwind wrote:On January 12 2009 17:44 RamenStyle wrote:
I know I bought a new PC for my parents with Vista and it would take literally minutes just to display a folder containing about 20-30 mp3 songs. Then whenever opening a folder with video files, it would prompt a warning pop up window. Not to mention the long time it takes to shut down.
I had to install XP because Vista couldn't handle properly the basic functions my parents used with the computer it didn't occur to me that my crappy comp needed more ram (open browser, read Korean newspapers, watch Korean networks news and call through Skype). fixed. That must be it. Thanks for illuminating me, smartass. Except for two facts: 1 - The computer was brand new and high-end. I don't know what your experience with high-end stuff is, but when I pay top dollar for something, I expect it not to fall short at anything. 2 - My parents are not working for ILM or Pixar. They browse the internet. Yeah, that must consume terabytes of RAM. And even if your genius input was true and my parents computer needed more memory, it would make Vista require 8GB of RAM to browse the web, then it still proofs my point valid: Vista is a piece of shit. Right after installing XP it all went smooth. So again, Vista = Crap.
1 - So let me get this straight...you paid top dollar for a high-end computer so that your parents could use Skype, watch the news, and browse the web? What exactly is your definition of a high-end computer?
2 - Do you honestly think that a high-end computer is unable to do these basic things with Vista? I just recently built a mid-to-high-end comp with Vista and it runs perfectly fine. Maybe you should stop blaming an OS for all of your problems and actually figure out what could be the real culprit. Or ask someone before you throw your money at a "high-end" computer that can't even run Vista.
|
Kentor
United States5784 Posts
dammit paint in windows 7 is retarded. lines are anti aliased and if you have a line of 1 pixel width it's 0 in the counter on the bottom. 
|
Lol but they look so much smoother wonder what kind of anti aliasing they are using seems to be the bad kind used by graphing calculators to plot things wrong.
|
did anyone notice that the default background image is a beta fish and that there are 7 bubbles! My roommate just figured it out and it blew his mind.
|
On January 12 2009 13:39 Amnesty wrote:
ctrl + enter = fullscreen since like win 3.1
D:
it's alt - enter
On January 12 2009 13:39 someone wrote:
What's wrong with Vista?
At first glance, nothing. But I keep running into stuff that doesn't work. Friend of mine has it on a brand new machine and can't do Starcraft over Hamachi, not with reordering network adapters, not with forcebindip, and no one knows why. Works on some other Vista computers I've tried. Never a problem with XP.
Network printers: PITA. Add Printer -> network printer -> browser for printer == fail. The solution, as described on many sites, is to Add Printer -> local printer -> create a new port -> entering the network address. Why? No one knows.
This is with limited time using it. I worry I'd run into more stuff if I used it more often. But so far Vista does nothing important for me that XP doesn't, so I have no reason to change.
|
hows the compatability issues and stuff?
Also Vista isn't crap. It's only crap with backwards compatability issues. Even though it is a bit more graphic intensive, any modern computer can handle it with mostly no lag. All you need is 2gb of ram and a 256mb video card imo and a dual core processor :/
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
