|
|
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22065 |  goku2100 (154) Aug 30, 2009 - 01:57 am
| | Well the Intel Atom is currently useless as it currently stands what with its 10 watt chipset and .5 watt processor. If they want the battery life, they need to replace that desktop chipset with a chipset that properly complements the Atom Processor. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22039 | goku2100 (154) Aug 30, 2009 - 01:48 am » Edited on Aug 30, 2009 - 01:53 am
| You people always use the same agument, "but if it's low priority data, it goes into the page file, making room for the data that matters". Problem with this logic is, the HDD is very slow and if I have to wait for data to be paged to the HDD EVEN in a sequential manner, THAT alone is enough to bring a system to a crawl.
I have 1GB of ram on my laptop and about 300mb of ram being used up by Microsoft's patches to XP and other laptop utilities that handle power management. When I use Photoshop and utilize more than 500MB of ram at a time, performance of the program drops by an order of a magnitude, and this is quantified by Photoshop's "efficiency" tab built into the program. Efficiency stays at 100% when all of the tasks are performed in the system memory, but soon as photoshop has to force all of those other programs and the operating system out of memory, the "efficiency" drops all the way to 23% and despite the fact that the program is utilizing 700MB of memory which is how much it needs for a particular task, its performance or lack thereof clearly shows.
So no, simply paging to the HDD does not magically solve Windows' memory usage issues and because Windows uses so much memory, I have to wait for ages just to allocate enough memory for my program and by the time that happens, it's STILL slower than it should be because there are other tasks that need to be performed by the operating system but can't because it's now running from the HDD.
Want another example? When I play BF2 on my system with 1GB of ram, I have to wait about 5 minutes while the map loads into the system memory and the excess or the "lower priority" data is paged out to the HDD. Once the map is fully loaded, I then have to wait for all elements of the map to load into the RAM, and from there the game is smooth sailing. IF I switch out and look at task manager, I can see that it's using about 800MB of ram. Yet when I upgraded to 2GB of ram, the map loads in less than 20 seconds, the map elements load into the RAM very quickly and it's smooth sailing from there. When I switch out and look at task manager, I see that the game is STILL using 800MB of ram. So despite the fact the game isn't utilizing any more ram, my gaming experience is so much faster and better because Windows didn't pageout its nonsense functions to the HDD, but instead was able to leave them in the RAM because there was enough room for BF2 and Windows' memory hogging operations.
So you see, Windows IS bloated and paging to the HDD is NOT an option if you want to feasibly fully utilize your system memory...
It'd be one thing if I was trying to perform a task that required 2GB of data to be in the RAM, but I'm not, and instead I'm performing a task that technically should run perfectly in the amount of RAM that is available but doesn't because there are OTHER memory hogging processes running, leaving less room for the program you want to run. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22057 | goku2100 (154) Aug 25, 2009 - 03:15 am
| So with that logic, how about this:
Boy 1 takes toy from Boy 2
Boy 2 cries and says, GIVE ME BACK MY TOY!
Boy 1 breaks toy he took from Boy 2, then gives it back to Boy 2
This if a fair compromise because now boy 2 has his toy again even though it's broken and it's better to have a broken toy than no toy at all, right??? Ugh.. Why does blizzard have to be so retarded? Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=22039 | goku2100 (154) Aug 23, 2009 - 01:31 am
| I want to see benchmarks with XP SP 0 vs Vista SP0 and Windows 7 SP0. Also, they should conduct the tests on systems with less memory. The benefit of an operating system that uses less memory is that when running higher end games, there is that much more memory available to the game, not being used by the operating system to do a whole lot of nothing in the background. I think most of the reasons why the Windows Operating Systems have become so bloated with patch after patch is because all they do is fill the holes instead of restructuring the architecture so that the holes could never exist. In a sense, they make an operating system, then discover they need to write a bunch of specialized code JUST TO correct these holes that never should have existed in the first place!
It's like you build a house for $100,000(think of this as 100MB of ram), but then spend $250,000 (200mb of ram) fixing up all the problems the house has because it wasn't built right in the first place! Don't believe me? Try an installation of Windows XP SP0 (RTM), check out the memory usage, then install SP3 and all the associated patches and check again the memory usage. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=21821 | goku2100 (154) Jun 30, 2009 - 01:09 pm
| » What the hell
Are they outta their goddamn minds? There was even an OPTION on the old starcraft to install multiple copies (albiet limited) on different machines JUST SO THAT YOU COULD PLAY LAN MULTIPLAYER, WHAT THE FUCK!?!?! This is just their greedy asses not wanting to let people play the LAN games between each other. Piracy my ass, they even ecouraged you to install the "limited edition/Lan edition whatever" on different machines so you could play with your friends. Stupid assholes! Now, is it any surprise when you've got a company that wants to charge you $50 just for one race instead of having all three combined into one game? Stupid fucking greedy ass blizzard, like you didn't make enough money off of Starcraft. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=21567 | goku2100 (154) Apr 28, 2009 - 06:12 am
| | Or maybe it is slowing because it was realized that the power savings of this processor were negated by other adjacent components such as the chipset and I/O controller. It's pretty ironic to have a CPU take up .5W yet have the I/O and chipset take up 9W.. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=21522 | goku2100 (154) Apr 16, 2009 - 04:09 pm
| | stupid, why can't they put "CULV" processors in the more top end notebooks, having it be able to clock between top performance and low performance, maximum power saving. I want excellent battery life when I need it and top performance when on AC. Why does it always have to be one or the other??? Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=21470 | goku2100 (154) Apr 01, 2009 - 04:19 pm
| | EA isn't getting another DIME of my money until they remove this bullshit altogether! I don't care how "killer" or "awesome" their games are proclaimed to be, so long as they make installation and usage of their games long after they've stopped making and supporting their games impossible, I REFUSE to hand them ANY amount of money. I'm constantly reminded of how these DRM schemes are very anticonsumer whenever I go an install and older game like NFS:High stakes or Rise of Nations... Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=21376 | goku2100 (154) Mar 10, 2009 - 10:34 am
| It's still bloated....Bring it down to 128MB of ram usage then we'll talk. It's a fricken OS, I don't care that "ram is cheap" because it's only cheap on new systems. When using very demanding programs and playing games, I want to squeeze every bit out of my system and having a bloated OS is preventing me from doing so. That 512-1Gb of ram could be going towards something useful, instead it is wasted on the OS crap, constantly bugging the CPU, utilizing excess amounts of ram, never shutting up, won't let the processor idle for one second and draining away battery life.
Microsoft's OS' need work, they need to learn to stop adding so much crap code and having it doing bullshit in the background especially when on battery as I seemingly can never get the OS to go into a truly idle state. They also need to cut down on the consumption of system resources. Just because it's there, it doesn't mean you HAVE TO USE IT. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=21116 | goku2100 (154) Dec 25, 2008 - 09:31 pm
| | Having a dedicated video card would help reduce CPU utilization for video related products which means better overall battery life and performance. Even the simplest video card is better than the Integrated nonsense that Intel provides. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=20932 | goku2100 (154) Oct 16, 2008 - 03:50 am
| | You're only saying that because what it was before was worse. If this was the first thing they were implementing, you'd be up in arms but since they had it worse, now you think it's fair. If the government said they were going to require all video games to be Rated E, you'd be pissed. But if they change their mind and then say all video games be rated T, you'd be joyous and you'd commend them! Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=20932 | goku2100 (154) Oct 16, 2008 - 03:47 am » Edited on Oct 16, 2008 - 03:53 am
| You should exclude it from benchmarks because I won't have the chance to play this game due to the DRM. If these companies insist on putting such stupid DRM schemes on their games, I'm simply NOT going to play their games. The worst part about this DRM is that this is the Second game that I was seriously considering purchasing but are unable to due to the DRM.
I really wanted to get Spore and couldn't, Farcry 2 I was considering but with this DRM, I simply cannot. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=20860 | goku2100 (154) Sep 19, 2008 - 01:45 pm
| | Steam isn't any better b/c in say 10 years, valve goes out of business, gets taken over, etc. the service is potentially compromised. Remember, nothing is guaranteed and so you're at the mercy of the companies which I feel is completely unacceptable when you fork over money for something like this. Flag this | Edit this post |
| News Link » /news/newsarticle.asp?searchid=20833 | goku2100 (154) Sep 09, 2008 - 11:57 pm
| | Quite impressive and it looks like AMD has either got its act together or they simply have figured out first that a large monolithic core is not the way to go. Either way, AMD has come out with a card that has good value, saving money for both AMD and the consumer. Flag this | Edit this post |
|
|
|
|
