F_M_J
-
Posts
166 -
Joined
-
Quote:Me, and the vast majority of the player base.Originally Posted by Master-Blade
I play exclusively on Freedom. Population is no excuse.
I'm not saying nor assuming you are doing anything "wrong", but obviously your results differ than mine, so there is something "different" that you are doing every time. That's all.
-
Quote:So, you assume I am "doing it wrong" heh, nice. For the record, I also pull the same way in that area, and it has no effect for me. The lag bomb still comes and it still gets nearly unplayable.Originally Posted by Master-Blade
If I played it the same way as you, I'm sure I would, but I used to run the ITF several times every night for a while last year and learned to avoid that type of situation. Most of the time, I lead this TF with my Tank and pull the Generals and EBs down the hill to the bridge (or when situations are right, somebody just solos the Gens on the hill while the group takes out the EBs on the bridge). That pretty much controls where the foes are and where the ambushes go. It has nothing to do with luck.
I used to do repeated sub30 speed-runs of this TF, and with people doing around only 20min runs these days, I'm obviously not the only person who isn't having much of an issue either, or else times like that would be impossible to achieve.
Like I said..
but until it gets fixed, your only other option is to change the way you play the mission. Same can be said for the "broken" STF as well.
If you approach a situation the same way every single time, you are bound to get the same result. If you keep having issues or failing, then change the way you approach the situation and maybe you'll get a different result.
Maybe you play on a low population server, I on the other hand play on the highest pop server and it is the norm to have massive lag in that mission. -
Quote:Interesting, how you went from a very definitive statement, then back pedaled to information you saw on one site, but don't remember which site. Probably a site advertising, or one that supports, a malware or spyware program.Originally Posted by Ironblade
Then go do some research. I read that on a security site, was skeptical, and found the same basic opinion expressed elsewhere.
If I remembered where I had seen it, I'd post a link. But I don't, so I can't and don't feel like trying to track it down again. Feel free to regard it as ridiculous and ignore it and/or me. I promise not to be offended.
Sorry, but this is less than convincing.
While I do agree that stopping the infection before it even occurs would be ideal, this sadly is not always possible. That is where a proven and reliable AV product comes into play. To not have one is just asking for trouble.
Personally, I have had very few infections, luckily each one was stopped by Avira AntiVir and cleaned with no impact to my system.
Catwhoorg - using "Patch Day" for windows to compare vulnerabilities to the ineffectiveness of an AV product is pretty silly. Completely different things, that is like saying the space shuttle has technical difficulties there for my Honda might not be safe to drive. -
Quote:So the entire gaming community except you have issues on this map? Care to stop by the store and pick me up a lottery ticket? :POriginally Posted by Master-Blade
For that mission, I believe it's pathing errors that the ambushes and patrols have issues with that causes the lag. When it happens, you can usually notice a very large group of foes bunched up in a corner somewhere, or caught up on plants.. usually on the other side of that archway.. which is why many people stay near the bridge at the beginning and pull the foes down the hill instead. That seems to prevent the ambushes from going in the "wrong direction" and causing the "lag-fest" you describe.
Personally.. I haven't had an issue with it since last year. I occasionally run into the "nova-lag" when somebody sets off a big explosion, and my guess would be that might have something to do with all the extra sound effects built into the Cimerorans, and large AoEs make them all grunt at the same time, and it hesitates.
I'm not saying that nothing is wrong, but it's certainly a manageable situation if you play it differently.. especially when you do the same thing every time and know it's coming.
-
This...
Quote:as for PSU's, do not get a generic one, or some off brand. stick with the trusted industry names as the psu labeling can be very misleading. i have seen 600w psu's that cant even put out a steady 300wOperating System: Windows Vista Home Premium (6.0, Build 6001) Service Pack 1 (6001.vistasp1_ldr.090302-1506)
I highly recommend you take a few mins and read through this thread, you will not regret it.
http://forums.extremeoverclocking.co...d.php?t=136602 -
Everything posted in this thread is opinion and should be taken as such.
however, I would like to see proof of this claim as i find it rather ridiculous.
Quote:Many security experts are moving toward the opinion that most AV and malware software simply don't cut it because they are reactive and, in many cases, it's already too late. -
Yes, they still suffer from issues and take a fair amount of tweaking to get to work well, and you still need to make decisions on certain options since you can not have them all enabled at once.
-
Quote:I also follow those same examples, however I have had my AV intercept half a dozen attempts to infect my comp over the last year. Yes, they were older viruses/trojans but that doesn't make them any less dangerous, and if I did not have an AV there could have been some dire consequences. Sure it is getting tougher to catch the brand new 0-day ones, but with the increasing sophistication of the heuristics engines they do a decent job, and to say they can't stop an infection from occurring is ridiculous. Sure it's not perfect, but that in no way makes it any less important to have a current, reliable and proven AV solution.Originally Posted by Hugginator
As FatherX noted, the best that desktop AV can do today is to notify you that the computer is infected, and stop older known viruses which generally only last a week or 2, with a few notable exceptions.
As he also noted, separation of the browser from the OS is the next most powerful protection, sandboxing can accomplish this for any (afaik) browser out there today.
It notified me twice, and it has nothing at all to do with luck, I am personally so far off the virus radar it takes extraordinary circumstances for me to be infected.
I don't use Outlook any version, never have.
I don't use MS Office, stopped after 97.
I don't use Internet Explorer, never have.
I have used sandboxed browsers for years.
I have used no-script nearly since the day it was released.
And more.
I still think the general public should have the line item checkbox of 'i have AV' but its value is significantly eroded and in the last 2 years or so its almost useless.
It seems you are arguing that they are next to useless, yet still use them. I guess I just don't understand your duality in this, so I will stop trying. -
Doh, sorry FatherXmas. No, i was not referring to you, you posted yours while I was writing mine. (took me a while to complete since i was raiding in EQ2 at the time.
-
So basically you are saying AV's are useless and don't do anything. Yet you still have one, wether on your router or desktop, they both perform the same function.
Well, apparently is saved you at least twice.
Because you have incredible luck regarding your exposure, how does this say that the AV's don't work or are useless? That is like saying "I have never been shot while wearing a Kevlar Vest, there for wearing one won't protect me from a gunshot." Even though it has been proven to do so. -
lol, "zomg...the virii and trojanz are getting really good, so might as well just let them in and not even try to stop them!"
That line of thinking is just asinine, you are probably infected and don't even know it.
from OP: "That's the one thing that I loved, no ad's, no crap clogging your system, low resources, etc."
This has not been AVG for a very long time now, ever since 7.5+ it's gown down hill drastically.
Avira AntiVir Personal is one of the best freeware AV kits, and with one simple line edit in registery gets rid of the one reminder that you are using the freeware each time it auto updates, just google for it. -
lol, you are such a joke, i don't know why i waste my time...but here goes. I do not argue for arguments sake, that is your typical response to my posts when they disagree with yours. As for the constructiveness of my posts, I guess that is your opinion, not accurate, but opinions rarely are. I have never implied about where ever it is you may work, nor do i even care. I did not called YOU a fanboi, i said that "fanbois were predicting that" jeez, you really need to work on your reading comprehension.
1. I said that because you always have some argument with just about anything i post, and for the most part you predictably get personal with your attacks, deflect responsibility, and wave your e-peen around.
2. Good to know that your business is the bar to be used to measure the entire computer industry.
3. Good for you and starting to predict it a year ago, when others have been for decades and it STILL hasn't happened. That was my point.
4. my response to your comment on Win7 was concise and direct and accurate. You seem to take exception that i responded to it and tried to make it look like i was "picking it apare" when I was simply responding and correcting your statement regarding the "Fast release of Win7 as being evidence of the changing market place and the serious threat to microsoft" which doesn't exist."
5. This last part just made me lol, really... pointing out your supposed 6 figure income makes everything you say right now does it? lol, so you have been working on computers for both work and hobby? well, welcome to the club. 2 decades working in video game design and production, as well as being a computer "enthusiast" for the last 25 years. so what?
You have some sensitivity issues it seems like, so I try to be nicer and use lots of smileys and be more friendly in my posts so as not to ruffle your feathers....meh, what am i saying..no i wont. Man up, stop being so sensitive. the world does not revolve around you.
This no longer pertains to the topic, I will not continue this and further derail this thread. -
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
More work, maybe but most definitely worth it.
[/ QUOTE ]That's incredible subjective.
[ QUOTE ]
The odds of an upgrade working perfectly over a used install of a previous OS are not very good, not to mention installing an OS over another is NEVER better than doing a full install on a clean drive.
[/ QUOTE ]The Fedora people told me the same thing (hell, they even said you couldn't). And I showed them by upgrading multiple times
[ QUOTE ]
It does not have to be unused as you say, since I have re-used my current XP Pro on my last 3 rebuilds, and no it is not pirated, cracked or hacked. It is a fully licensed installation.
[/ QUOTE ]You can fanangle it to install on another machine, but the EULA forbids it. It's allowed by the installer in case you've changed the hardware in the machine a good bit.
[ QUOTE ]
The OS he stated in the OP says it comes with a Win7 upgrade, so I am not assuming anything.
[/ QUOTE ]You're assuming he wants to switch. Him mentioning the free upgrade doesn't means he'll want to use it, it just means that pretty much everything now includes a free upgrade to Windows 7.
[ QUOTE ]
the UI of an operating system has very little to do with the breaking of applications other than possible skinning issues which are easily fixed and would exist in ANY os.
[/ QUOTE ]Read what I wrote again, I wasn't saying one would cause the other. Ever single new Windows release has had trouble running a lot of applications written for the previous release, it's only natural that it's damn hard maintaining ABI and API compatibility on such a large scale that subtle things change and breakage occurs... and a lot of the time it isn't even Microsoft's fault, a lot of application developers develop their software to depend on undefined behavior in the Windows API.
[/ QUOTE ]
1. Not subjective at all, but pure fact.
2. I did not say you couldnt upgrade, but that the odds of it working perfectly are much lower than a fresh install, and the fact remains that an upgrade will never be as good or as clean as a full install.
3. There was no finagling about it, I just put the disc in and reinstalled. The finagling would be trying to install an upgrade to an OS that was not installed in the first place. Clearly not what it was intended for.
4. now this is just silly, you are arguing for the sake of arguing.
5. Quote: "...there has been loads of UI changes, and like normal there is going to be many broken applications" This implied that because of the UI changes there would be broken apps. BTW, there will be very few "broken" apps, if any since W7 is basically a tweaked Vista. For those that might not work, there is "XP Mode" Looking at it again, I can see what you may have meant, but the wording was ambiguous so it is possible i misread it. -
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the OS is irrelevant for a 32bit application itself is limited to 2gb, or 3.5 with the 2 switches enabled.
[/ QUOTE ]No, the design of the OS (kernel, specifically) dictates the limit (4GB being the x86 architectural limit, unless you use a hack like PAE). It's possible to allow almost all of the full 4GB of the address space to be allowocated to the application, but that complicates the kernel design and will introduce even more overhead in system calls, both Windows and Linux chose not to design their kernels to work like this.
[ QUOTE ]
Native 64 bit applications each single process is able to address up to 8 terabytes of memory.
[/ QUOTE ]Native Windows applications. The (current) processor-imposed limit being 256 TB (before the kernel/userland split), with the current limitation being 128 TB on Linux for userland processes. The OS is not irrelevant.
[ QUOTE ]
Nonetheless, developers will have to update their applications accordingly. Simply re-compiling the 32 bit applications with a 64 bit compiler is not sufficient, as this would result in each process still being limited to 2 GB.
[/ QUOTE ]No, unless you manually disable the compiler flag (it's on by default on the 64bit compiler), the application will automatically be able to address the full address space by a simple recompile. Changes might need to be made if the developer made assumptions about the sizes of various primitives (especially pointers), other 32bit-isms, or depends on functions deprecated on the Win32 for 64bit Windows API.
[/ QUOTE ]
no -
What, you disagree with something I said? There's a shocker...
So because you did it, the entire industry will follow suit?
10 years ago the linux/mac fanboys were saying the same thing.
The speed of Windows 7 has nothing to do with marketplace changing, it has to do with the crap OS that is Vista. It is not a full release, it is only an incremental one, despite what MS will tell you. There is not enough changes or differences of the 2 OS's to be called an entirely new OS.
You are only speculating anyway, history supports what I said. -
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
64bit doesn't offer anyone anything unless they have an application that is going to use more than 2GB itself, or multiple apps that will genuinely consume more than ~3.0GB.
[/ QUOTE ]Computationally heavy applications (such as encryption and video encoding) will also benefit massively from moving to 64bits (assuming the algorithms are also optimized for 64bits), both because of it being 64bits, as well as x86_64 having additional registers and a few other nice improvements. But yeah, for the vast majority of applications it won't make them faster, and it may even make them slower due to 64bit pointers and the like (which'll cause an increase in cache misses).
(moving to 64bits is still good for the long run, even if in many ways it doesn't help too much in the short run... just like how going multicore only benefited home users in a few situations when they first started coming out, but now more and more software is being designed to take advantage of the the extra cores)
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree, but even in those cases unless you are doing that all day long for your job its no big deal if your 1 time encryption/compression/encoding takes 7 minutes instead of 5 or visa versa.
But I completely agree that 64bit is the future, 'everyone' will be on a 64bit OS, I wouldn't be surprised though if in 5 years many/most of them are Linux or Mac though
[/ QUOTE ]
heh, Mac or Linux will NEVER be main stream. Linux would have a chance if it dumbed itself down so much that it acted just like windows, but then it wouldnt be linux anymore. The average mass market computer user is not interested in actually having to learn how to use command lines, etc. they just want to "click and go."
Apple doesn't have the ability to ever surpass Windows. Their costs are too high, and their hardware costs more than it is worth.
All this combined with the fact that nearly the entire industry is built around microsoft operating systems and its supporting software. -
the OS is irrelevant for a 32bit application itself is limited to 2gb, or 3.5 with the 2 switches enabled.
so a 32bit app on a 64bit OS would still be limited to 2gb.
Native 64 bit applications each single process is able to address up to 8 terabytes of memory. Nonetheless, developers will have to update their applications accordingly. Simply re-compiling the 32 bit applications with a 64 bit compiler is not sufficient, as this would result in each process still being limited to 2 GB. -
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So no, he is actually SAVING money doing it this way. Why purchase a copy of vista only to upgrade it a few months later? Better to use whatever current operating system he has and then upgrade later if he wants to.
[/ QUOTE ]Unless he just happens to have an extra, unused copy of Windows sitting around, he'd be stuck with having no OS until Windows 7 is released. Not to mention, it's far more work to do a clean installation than just doing an upgrade.
You're also assuming that he wants to switch to Windows 7... there's been loads of UI changes, and like normal there's going to be many broken applications.
[/ QUOTE ]
More work, maybe but most definitely worth it. The odds of an upgrade working perfectly over a used install of a previous OS are not very good, not to mention installing an OS over another is NEVER better than doing a full install on a clean drive. It never has been and never will be, unless the upgrade process does an fdisk and starts from scratch.
1. He already has a computer, obviously, since he is posting this. That computer has an OS on it, obviously, so I would assume he would re-use that OS. It does not have to be unused as you say, since I have re-used my current XP Pro on my last 3 rebuilds, and no it is not pirated, cracked or hacked. It is a fully licensed installation.
2. your last statement makes no sense. The OS he stated in the OP says it comes with a Win7 upgrade, so I am not assuming anything. He did plan to upgrade to Win7. the UI of an operating system has very little to do with the breaking of applications other than possible skinning issues which are easily fixed and would exist in ANY os. -
[ QUOTE ]
For the most part it has had horrible driver support. So it might not be worth it to install. Vista and windows 7 on the other hand have had better driver support.
[/ QUOTE ]
I had to lol at that. Vista had amazingly bad driver support for a long time after its launch, and how are you basing the driver support for an OS that is still in beta and not even released to the public yet?
I love how you say "don't believe the vista haters" then go on to list several examples of just how screwed up an OS it was for a long time. Vista may not be the crap it was during the first year of its release, but it is still far from being as stable and reliable as XP. Vista has more bloat, much higher system requirements to run said bloat, and really no improvements other than some much needed improved network security options that will really only effect the business end.
My opinion is that if you have a computer than can't run Windows Vista already, it's not likely going to run Windows 7 that well, *some* Atom netbooks notwithstanding (I would completely rule out running it on any of the Z-series Atom's - I know - I've tried - it's ugly). Windows Vista users with SP2 (everybody should be on that already) won't notice a big performance increase on an average machine. Are the features worth spending that much on an upgrade if you already own Windows Vista? Honestly, I don't think so. If your computer can't run Windows Vista that well, Windows 7 isn't going to be some kind of miracle-maker either.
My advice is to buy a new system that includes it. Most customers probably will anyway. Netbooks that can't run Windows Vista well will still be better suited to Windows 7 Starter, and new netbooks will ship with the new Atom dual-core mobile chips later this year anyway, which is going to be a much better experience with multimedia on Home Premium (HD video isn't workable on existing GMA 950-based machines).
So to sum up:
Is Windows 7 good? YES
Is it better than Vista? YES
Is it vastly superior to Vista? IMHO NO, but YMMV. There are unique features that Vista doesn't have that certain folks will like (such as XP Mode) - I like the new deployment refinements
Is it worth the upgrade for Windows Vista users? IMHO, not really, unless you can get some kind of deal on the upgrade
Is it worth the upgrade for XP users? YES, but only if your computer is at least Vista Premium compliant but you've been holding out on Vista
Will it improve your systems performance? NO
Will it run on netbooks? YES
Will it run faster than Vista? Only on Atom-based netbooks because Vista wasn't optimized for them and XP has much lower requirements than Vista. On mainstream systems, NO, although UI animations have been sped up from Vista so it'll seem faster to move around. There are shortcuts to certain areas (like wireless network connections) that weren't present in Vista, so that may be "faster" from a workflow perspective.
Will it run well on all netbooks? IMHO, only N series Atom netbooks
Should I wait and just replace my aging computer instead of upgrading it to Windows 7? IMHO if you have an XP-era computer, YES - you'll have a much better experience that way
Should you wait to buy a computer until after Windows 7 ships? NO, unless you want a netbook (see my above note - it's more for the hardware than the software). MAKE SURE the system includes the free Windows 7 Upgrade Option though. -
[ QUOTE ]
Well, the laptop was going to double as my school computer in the coming year. Going into Sound Recording, and the HP has a Subwoofer and everything.
[/ QUOTE ]
You aren't really expecting any kind of deep or rich real sound from laptop speakers are you? I hope not or you will be sorely disappointed. -
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. "ok" OS, personally I would have just used whatever OS you are currently using now and then when W7 is released, get the full version. Upgrade versions are and have always been dodgy. It's best to install full versions of operating systems.
[/ QUOTE ]You're wasting a huge amount of money doing it that way. Unless Microsoft changed things recently, you can do a full install using an upgrade version of the OS just by putting the previous OS's CD into the drive at the appropriate time during the installation.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, it has been changed in Windows 7.
*snip*
In order to install the upgrade version of Windows 7, you must have a qualifying Windows operating system installed and activated. You cannot install an upgrade version of Windows 7 on a blank hard drive. The installation procedure does not ask you to insert a Windows disc in the drive for verification, the actual qualifying operating system must be installed.
*snip*
So no, he is actually SAVING money doing it this way. Why purchase a copy of vista only to upgrade it a few months later? Better to use whatever current operating system he has and then upgrade later if he wants to. I still recommend the full version over the upgrade. -
Asking if you made good choices, after you already made it makes no sense. Would have been more prudent to ask before you actually made them.
Anyhow, with that said, on to your questions!
1. "ok" OS, personally I would have just used whatever OS you are currently using now and then when W7 is released, get the full version. Upgrade versions are and have always been dodgy. It's best to install full versions of operating systems.
2. If the majority of this rigs use will be for gaming, a quad core is overkill, and will actually get less performance than from a comparable Core 2 Duo. The reason is few games even use 2 cores, let alone 4. I believe there is currently only 2 games that use 4 cores. However, if you plan on multi-tasking a lot, then you may get your moneys worth.
3. Memory - 4gb is fine, but with prices as low as they are, i would just get 8gb and be future proof. 4gb is becoming the new standard now.
4. *this will cause endless debates, but here is my opinion* Should have gone with nVidia, especially since you play CoH. ATI cards aren't bad, when you can get them to work reliably. However, many current games are designed and tested using nVidia products to get the most performance and best experience. That is not to say that ATI cards don't work, and sometimes work well, but they are not usually the focus of the initial design. I will NOT be responding to any arguments as they will only derail this thread. This is my opinion that I have based on 20 years of experience working in the video game industry in testing and design. -
lol, nice thread hijack magnus1...
-
[ QUOTE ]
*bump* its dropped off the front page. anyway, yeah I think that somethin like this needs to be implemented in some form
[/ QUOTE ]
Congrats on being the first person to break the *proposed* limited bumping rule.
-
3 days is a long time to wait when you are unable to play the game, or have serious issues. If it was me, I would not wait 3 days, I might wait 24 hours tops.
Problem is, if it's not on the front page, chances drop drastically that anyone will even look at it.
There is a rule against bumping, it's well known and easily followed/enforced. Adding new rules to the mix would be silly and only serve to complicate things.
If someone's post is not getting a response, they need to search the forums and see if anyone is having simular issues and then post in that thread, or read and see if their problem may have a solution in that thread. The problem is most people are too lazy to even do a simple search, let alone actually look through specific threads.
This attempted new rule will solve nothing and only serve to push threads down into oblivion even faster.