Firefox doesn't use an extra 600MB ram. My vista is sitting on 550MB after gaming for a few hours straight, and having photoshop open the entire time, With Superfetch enabled... 1.5GB is fine for Vista, 512 for the OS, and 1GB for your games. You'll be able to max those settings out with ease, even with a maxed out resolution. BioShock is one of the least demanding new games I know of, It runs full graphics on my damned 6600!
the only thing the op has to worry about is his cpu. I assume its an intel dual core, & while its only clocked at 1.8, I am sure it is more efficient than an AMD counterpart at the same clock. Most new games recommend a cpu running at least 2.0ghz. He can give it a samall oc to hit that, easily. lThe 4850 is a solid performer. Ram is fine, too.
fools who think vista is better than xp are enveloped in deep dense darkness of illusion, vista has tons of problems half the old games dont work on it has worse graphics and memmory :lookaround: so whats so good in it?
Sgt. D. Pilla;4631194Firefox doesn't use an extra 600MB ram. My vista is sitting on 550MB after gaming for a few hours straight, and having photoshop open the entire time, With Superfetch enabled... 1.5GB is fine for Vista, 512 for the OS, and 1GB for your games. You'll be able to max those settings out with ease, even with a maxed out resolution. BioShock is one of the least demanding new games I know of, It runs full graphics on my damned 6600![/quote]
i said i have firefox and othor programs running in the background.
SVhost uses 150mbs of ram for me. firefox is about 20mb ram. i use vista aero / video sidebar / about 12 backgrond programs ;P
of course firefox doesnt use 600mbs :P i didnt say that.
[quote=makoodzaka;4631208]fools who think vista is better than xp are enveloped in deep dense darkness of illusion, vista has tons of problems half the old games dont work on it has worse graphics and memmory :lookaround: so whats so good in it?
I dont live in a deep darkness i been useing vista since it came out.
All my games work fine / great on it. i would let you come over and personaly see but ull need to pay the way :)
and old games work great on vista. some ull need to select it under proporties to run under XP SP2 or windows 98
We should really have an "XP/Vista" sticky here...
Original bugs are all-but gone, easier to use day-to-day, DX10 support, nicer looking.
RAM whore, but most computers no-a-days have more than enough anyway.
If you want to make Vista game better on 2GB RAM, try this: [COLOR=Blue]AlacrityPC[/COLOR]
>Omen<;4631400If you want to make Vista game better on 2GB RAM, try this: [COLOR=Blue]AlacrityPC[/COLOR]
Have you used it?
This is what I posted on Our clan's site at dark saint productions
Merrick As I have said in the past two years, Vista doesn't cut the mustard where XP is concerned. Everyone who uses vista talks about xp and the BSOD's that happened before xp recieved it's SP1. Here vista has received it's SP1 and STILL can not climb the ladder of XP's stature in performance. Maximum pc did the benchmarks and brings to light everything I have said before.
MaximumPC To test vista versus xp performance, we built what we think is a fairly middle-of -the-road rig. An intel q6600 quad core with 2 gigs of memory and a geforce 8800gts vcard. We then ran a battery of benchmarksin three different OS environments:
* WinXp with SP3 Vista ( without sp1 with modern Nvidia drivers installed ) Vista (with Sp1)
Our testers measure everything from overall system performance to network speed and gaming prowess.
Overall Performance Unsurprisingly, windows xp remains faster in almost all of our standard system benchmarks. More noteworthy is how SP2 has improved vista's performance, narrowing the gap between between that OS and Xp in key tests and even allowing Vista to surpass xp in our MainConcept Coder test.
Unfortunately for Vista our desktop benchmarks do reveal areas where vista continues to suffer substantial performance hits compared to Xp, namely in ProShow and Quake4. We've talked to the proshow developers and they don't know what causes the slowdown with their app in vista, but they are investigating. We attribute the quake4 performance hit to poor opengl drivers in vista.
As we mentioned before, we're perfectly willing to sacrifice a few percentage points of performance from an os upgrade. However, he difference between Vista SP1 and XP SP3in proshow and Q4 reaches a dismal 10-25%.
Premier pro CS3
* WinXp SP3 924 Vista (no sp)960 Vista (w/sp )960
* WinXp SP3 133 Vista (no sp) 136 Vista (w/sp ) 139
* WinXp SP3 963 Vista (no sp) 1214 Vista (w/sp ) 1275
* WinXp SP3 1881 Vista (no sp) 1822 Vista (w/sp ) 1814
Quake 4 (FPS)
* WinXp SP3 143.5 Vista (no sp) 126.5 Vista (w/sp ) 125.8
* WinXp SP3 65 Vista (no sp) 65 Vista (w/sp)65
**best scores are bolded. These are our standard system benchmarks, with one exception. We ran the games at 1920x1200 resolution with 4xaa and 16x af on fear. NO AA or Af on Q4.
3DMARK06 GAME 1
* WinXp SP3 29 Vista (no sp) 28 Vista (w/sp ) 28
* WinXp SP3 26 Vista (no sp) 26 Vista (w/sp ) 26
NETWORK TRANSFER SPEEDS Network-small to NAS (sec)
* WinXp SP3 38 Vista (no sp) 48 Vista (w/sp) 43
Network-small from NAS
* WinXp SP3 39 Vista (no sp) 68 Vista (w/sp) 42
Network-Large to NAS
* WinXp SP3 139 Vista (no sp) 181 Vista (w/sp) 144
Network-Large from NAS
* WinXp SP3 140 Vista (no sp) 271 Vista (w/sp) 142
** Best scores are bolded. Our NAS test consists of two files transfers, which we refer to as the small and large tests. The small test is 659mb spread over 180 files, while the large test is a single 2.8gb.
NETWORK TRANSFER SPEED
Our final set of benchmarkstest networking performance. We set up the fastest NAS box we have ever tested, the QNAPTS-109 PRO, and ran our standard network storage benchmarks on it. While we saw the same stunning performance inadequacies from pre-SP1 Vista that we observed at the OS's Launch, SP1 and the subsequent updates seem to have solves most of those issues. The minor gaps of a few seconds that do exist between Xp and Vista SP1 are explained by the fact that xp shuts the file transfer window before the transfer is confirmed , while Vista waits until it has checked the copied file.
With the exception of a couple outlier applications Vista's performance is within striking distance of Xp's, for the most part. Thanks largely to a series of performance enhancements and SP1, vista has closed the gap in many areas where it was Deficient. We're willing to overlook the poor OpenGL gaming performance simply because there aren't any OpenGL games coming out, and it seems the proshow problem is an isolated incident.
Goody has even agreed with the fact that, vista doesn't cut it where certain areas are concerned. He even did his time beta testing vista way back when. At this time using vista, you may as well dual boot both vista and xp and save yourself a whole lot of trouble.
Now before fanboys start in on this remember one thing: Your rig may not be his rig or somebody else's rig. Just because you have had a " pearl " of a good time with it and minimal issues, doesn't mean you are the majority. The majority is, vista is a failure. Not only does the majority of the public yield to this conclusion, but so does microsoft. They have labled it their " 6 billion dollar failure".
Most ppl i talk to have said vista rocks since SP1.
yes we all know vista is a fail but since SP1 it has been perfect for meny.
but for me even befor SP1 i loved it. im not a fanboy im stateing the turth.
iv had no issuies with vista only BSOD's iv gotton was from overclocking to a unstable clock.
Iv been told windows 7 is the true vista with major fixes.
G33kinator;4631409Have you used it?
I've been using it for a little while now. It really does work great, it drops Vista's ram usage to right around 300MB for me. It can also automatically shut down all the extra services and programs you don't need while gaming, and restart them when your done.