Re: The Witcher Performance Issue.

Thus spake "Morgan" <Nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sat, 31 May 2008 09:21:09 +0100,
Anno Domini:

"Nostromo" <nospam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:qcb144d9dhccenjf1cusnkvsce8hqn39uc@xxxxxxxxxx
Thus spake "Morgan" <Nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sat, 31 May 2008 01:26:09
+0100,
Anno Domini:

Tell me, why is it that almost
every app & game still runs more than acceptably on my 3 yr old (then
upper-midrange)

Because your system is three years old and wasn't overly great when it was
new. An equivalent modern system will have about four times the
horsepower
today.

Re-read the question - you've answered a different one I didn't ask.

Okay the answer is it doesn't. Just the ones that you run are fine. Chuck
Vista on a new rig and there will be negligible difference between games
running on a vista rig compared to an XP one. On a modern computer it is my
experience that Vista actually runs faster and none gaming apps also run
faster.

Now we're getting the crux. Why do I want the new shiny baubles? How have
they improved gaming in *any* way? Show me a game I just have to have that
has the depth & breadth of FO1/2, PST, BG1/2, VTMB or even D2, to name a
few, that are only a few years old. Why does last year's best crpg title The
Witcher run perfectly acceptably on my rig?
If we ignore most fps eye-candy titles & console hybrids like Bioshock &
Mass Effect, what exactly is the compelling reason for me to upgrade? Other
than even lower spec games becoming incompatible in a couple years because
developers are mostly of the 'if you can't beat em join em' sheepy crowd &
will code exclusively for Vista at some stage.
All I'm saying is, this is not a good thing. The wool MS have pulled over
everyone's eye's isn't even wool - we can all see their obvious & no longer
subtle tactics, yet we take it bending over in the name of the greedy gods
of consumerism!

single-core system, but in order to reap the amazing
'benefits' of Vista I need a dual-core rig

You don't. I ran Vista fine on a single core Athlon FX-55 for quite some
time.

Why do we need inefficient bloatware like Vista sucking 25%+ of our
processing power & monster systems to run it on at all, is the underlying
question you're avoiding.

Where are you getting 25% from? My answer to the question is that it
doesn't use 25% and it will run fine of a modern mid range PC. You're
trying to run in on a three year old mid range PC.

The PC was only 1 notch below high-end (without getting silly) when I spec'd
it up back then. The industry & technology ain't moving that fast. We're
being forced to pay for the silly competition of greedy conglomerates & for
some pissy stranglehold on perceived market share. There should be a
governing body to control the release of new technologies on the market,
especially new 'upgrades' to existing ones until the developer demonstrates
an actual improvement or real added value. Of course, with Capitalism run
amok, that will never happen, nor do I suggest it seriously, but there's
been a growing trend in the past 10yrs to slap another +1 on a chip or
vidcard every 6mths & call it 'new & improved', which I say is complete
bull*** - don't buy into it. Of course, I'm in the minority - most free
thinkers in every generation are, especially where commercial trinkets are
involved these days, the panacea they sell us for all our needs & hearts'
desires!

If you're trying to run a new operating system on a old PC what do you
expect to happen? Vista is aimed at new hardware, just as XP was aimed at
new hardware. When XP came out people were bitching that it didn't run
games as well as 98 did. When the next version of windows come out people
will probably be moaning about how Vista runs games better.

Chicken & the egg. And we're back to the Intel/MS duopoly. If you see
nothing wrong with the trend, if your eyes & mind have been that closed to
what's been going on for years & years, then I'm sorry to say you're a
large
part of the problem, & there is no 'solution' that we will find common
ground on to discuss.

It's called advancement in technology. Vista is a more stable, more
functional and nicer to look at OS than XP was and will run fine on a modern
PC.

I couldn't disagree more & I see the troubles ppl have with it both
commercially & privately. It is less intuitive, less efficient, less
productive (same as the MS Office 2007 abortion). Again, chicken & the egg -
I wouldn't need new monster h/ware if inefficient bloatware wasn't
artificially pushing up system reqs in a bid to separate us from our
hard-earned dollar. We should be making them work much harder for our money
& entertainment hours than this.

I like to play a verity of games, some other these need a lot of
horsepower,
I'm also interested new OSs and hardware. I've got enough disposable
income
to be able to afford to keep my hardware up to date. If you don't have a
need to do this then fair enough (If I used my PC in the same way you did
I'd sped the money else where as well ) but don't come bitching about how
new operating systems don't run well one your old hardware.

You still have your head in the sand & haven't demonstrated that any
modern/recent game requires anywhere near the grunt they have been forced
to
utilise as a result of the bloatware & inefficiencies/performance loss
inherent in Vista, which is not dissimilar to what we've seen happen with
each Windows iteration & most have taken lying down.

Er yes I have. I've already mentioned a games comparisons (not the best
method but functional none the less). If Vista used a substantially greater
proportion of system recourses compared to XP on a modern system then high
end games would run with substantially reduced frame rates. This is not the
case. Even a few weeks after release there was only a negligible difference
on a 2GB Athlon FX

That argument doesn't wash, as I've stated twice above. You only need
'modern' systems to run new games because you've been forced to upgrade for
little or no real gain & through continually inefficient/lazy OS & game
design. It's a marketing ploy, pure & simple, & you've bought into it hook,
line & sinker.

The bottom line is that Vista runs games well on a modern(ish) rig, it ran
them fine on my old single core Athlon FX and it runs them fine on my
current Intel Quad core.

Good for you, and for me if I wanted to exchange my principles for cheap
thrills, as I probably have just as much money to burn as you.

If you're principles include not spending money on new hardware then fine.
However I'd suggest that you take it too seriously and that you need to
lighten up.

I know I need to lighten up about a lot of things & this may or may not be
one of them. I'm just waiting for one honest Vista buyer here to admit they
know it's the Devil's OS, but they couldn't resist getting it anyway ;).
Most just seem happy to play with their new toys & remain apathetic to the
greater implications. Maybe I'd have more fun if I ignored my social
conscience & did the same...?

--
Nostromo
.

Loading