Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: Mr. Vega on April 30, 2011, 08:42:21 pm
-
I got into gaming when I first got a Dell Dimension XPS T450, a powerhouse with 96 megs of ram and a 16meg Voodoo 3. It worked wonderfully with the games of its era that I wanted to play. I very rarely ever asked myself, "why the hell can't I get a better framerate?" I always did exactly as well as it was supposed to do. Times were good.
Since then, I have had just about the most horrible luck imaginable with the framerate performance I get out of my PCs, even on ****ty detail and resolution settings while everyone else is complaining about how they can't get 60 fps with specs inferior to mine with the setting on 1600 x whatever with 16xAA and AF. It's gotten to the point where I suspect that there's a vast conspiracy on the part of all computer and graphics card makers ever to make me as mindboggled and as frustrated as possible. And that's not counting the occasional bad luck with choosing computer specs (like picking a laptop with a Mobile Radeon X2300 that not only, as I find out later, sucks, but IS THE ONLY RELATIVELY-RECENT CARD I CAN FIND THAT ISN'T EVEN FRELLING SUPPORTED BY ATI FOR DRIVER UPDATES.
Maybe it's just that I've been very pro-ATI in my card selection, when ATI secretly hates me? I can't even get consistently good framerates on a super old game like KOTOR 2, especially when any fog or smoke effect shows up- on a desktop with a Radeon 4670! I can't even get good FPS out of Morrowind now since I upgraded graphics cards for this thing! Yes, I know, people getting screwed by driver issues with older games happens a plenty, but WHY DOES IT HAPPEN TO HIT ME EVERY SINGLE FREAKING TIME.
This came to a head this afternoon, where I finally decided to buy Portal and play it for the first time. I wanted to enjoy it much as everyone else did. Let it be noted that this PC can play games like Dragon Age I&II or Starcraft II with little if any FPS trouble. The drivers have been updated recently, as I make sure they always are. I download and install Portal. I start the game, letting the auto-detect determine the graphic settings. I get 10fps. I turn the settings all the way down. ALL THE WAY DOWN. As in, LOWEST EVERYTHING on 1164X864 or whatever. The frame rate? 10-15 MOTHERFRACKING FRAMES PER SECOND. I GOT A FLUID FRAMERATE OFF DA II ON MEDIUM RIGHT OFF THE BAT, A GAME THAT CAME OUT LIKE A MONTH AGO, AND I CAN'T FRACKING PLAY PORTAL 1 WITHOUT WANTING TO TEAR MY EYES OUT. Seriously, WHAT THE GODDAMN FREAKING MOTHERFRACKING HELL! Isn't the source engine supposed to be well-optimized and everything? I can't even find more than a few threads of people complaining about performance issues with Portal that aren't Mac users on the entire internet! And I didn't even screw my computer up by going to Windows Vista or 7! This thing is still on XP! IT SHOULD BE FREAKING FINE!
I'm sure plenty of you are gonna be all like "dude, stop buying machines from Dell and those other idiots, they suck." This is fine other than the fact that plenty of people who buy from those ****ty vendors don't have any problems, including say, all of my gamer friends. OH! And, when I asked on this forum where I good alternative place to get a PC was, most suggested, you know, to build my own computer. Which would be fine IF I KNEW HOW TO BUILD A GODDAMN COMPUTER. I'M SORRY I CAN'T DO WHAT YOU ALL CAN. DOES THIS MEAN I HAVE TO SUFFER WITH STUTTERING FOR ALL ETERNITY? Seriously. did I do something to anger the Poseidon of PC gods? This is but a small sample of the **** I've put up with for years, despite (excepting the Radeon 2300 debacle) rigorous research before every purchase. SO WHAT IN THE GODDAMN FREAKING HELL IS GOING ON?
I mean, it's not like I'm bitter or anything.
-
Seriously, WHAT THE GODDAMN FREAKING MOTHERFRACKING HELL! Isn't the source engine supposed to be well-optimized and everything? I can't even find more than a few threads of people complaining about performance issues with Portal that aren't Mac users on the entire internet! And I didn't even screw my computer up by going to Windows Vista or 7! This thing is still on XP! IT SHOULD BE FREAKING FINE!
Well I've often had problems with Source games where they'd have pretty bad performance even though they aren't pretty while being able to play Crysis on high settings, so no, it's not just you who has problems with Source games.
-
......I just wanna play Portal...... :( :banghead:
I mean, if I had any sanity at all I would never buy anything with an ATI card ever again. But everyone raves about how superior ATI cards are now, so I'm sure I'll rope myself into it one more time and.... :banghead:
Maybe I should steal other people's computers. They would work fine until the PC gods smite me with the next driver update.
-
Seriously, WHAT THE GODDAMN FREAKING MOTHERFRACKING HELL! Isn't the source engine supposed to be well-optimized and everything? I can't even find more than a few threads of people complaining about performance issues with Portal that aren't Mac users on the entire internet! And I didn't even screw my computer up by going to Windows Vista or 7! This thing is still on XP! IT SHOULD BE FREAKING FINE!
Well I've often had problems with Source games where they'd have pretty bad performance even though they aren't pretty while being able to play Crysis on high settings, so no, it's not just you who has problems with Source games.
This sounds like it goes way beyond the Source engine. I have what I'd easily wager is a far inferior machine to Mr. Vega's, and even Portal 2 ran smooth as silk on the highest settings for me (at least until gel showed up, anyway). It doesn't even break a sweat with the original Portal.
-
I got into gaming when I first got a Dell Dimension XPS T450, a powerhouse with 96 megs of ram and a 16meg Voodoo 3. It worked wonderfully with the games of its era that I wanted to play. I very rarely ever asked myself, "why the hell can't I get a better framerate?" I always did exactly as well as it was supposed to do. Times were good.
Since then, I have had just about the most horrible luck imaginable with the framerate performance I get out of my PCs, even on ****ty detail and resolution settings while everyone else is complaining about how they can't get 60 fps with specs inferior to mine with the setting on 1600 x whatever with 16xAA and AF. It's gotten to the point where I suspect that there's a vast conspiracy on the part of all computer and graphics card makers ever to make me as mindboggled and as frustrated as possible. And that's not counting the occasional bad luck with choosing computer specs (like picking a laptop with a Mobile Radeon X2300 that not only, as I find out later, sucks, but IS THE ONLY RELATIVELY-RECENT CARD I CAN FIND THAT ISN'T EVEN FRELLING SUPPORTED BY ATI FOR DRIVER UPDATES.
Maybe it's just that I've been very pro-ATI in my card selection, when ATI secretly hates me? I can't even get consistently good framerates on a super old game like KOTOR 2, especially when any fog or smoke effect shows up- on a desktop with a Radeon 4670! I can't even get good FPS out of Morrowind now since I upgraded graphics cards for this thing! Yes, I know, people getting screwed by driver issues with older games happens a plenty, but WHY DOES IT HAPPEN TO HIT ME EVERY SINGLE FREAKING TIME.
This came to a head this afternoon, where I finally decided to buy Portal and play it for the first time. I wanted to enjoy it much as everyone else did. Let it be noted that this PC can play games like Dragon Age I&II or Starcraft II with little if any FPS trouble. The drivers have been updated recently, as I make sure they always are. I download and install Portal. I start the game, letting the auto-detect determine the graphic settings. I get 10fps. I turn the settings all the way down. ALL THE WAY DOWN. As in, LOWEST EVERYTHING on 1164X864 or whatever. The frame rate? 10-15 MOTHERFRACKING FRAMES PER SECOND. I GOT A FLUID FRAMERATE OFF DA II ON MEDIUM RIGHT OFF THE BAT, A GAME THAT CAME OUT LIKE A MONTH AGO, AND I CAN'T FRACKING PLAY PORTAL 1 WITHOUT WANTING TO TEAR MY EYES OUT. Seriously, WHAT THE GODDAMN FREAKING MOTHERFRACKING HELL! Isn't the source engine supposed to be well-optimized and everything? I can't even find more than a few threads of people complaining about performance issues with Portal that aren't Mac users on the entire internet! And I didn't even screw my computer up by going to Windows Vista or 7! This thing is still on XP! IT SHOULD BE FREAKING FINE!
I'm sure plenty of you are gonna be all like "dude, stop buying machines from Dell and those other idiots, they suck." This is fine other than the fact that plenty of people who buy from those ****ty vendors don't have any problems, including say, all of my gamer friends. OH! And, when I asked on this forum where I good alternative place to get a PC was, most suggested, you know, to build my own computer. Which would be fine IF I KNEW HOW TO BUILD A GODDAMN COMPUTER. I'M SORRY I CAN'T DO WHAT YOU ALL CAN. DOES THIS MEAN I HAVE TO SUFFER WITH STUTTERING FOR ALL ETERNITY? Seriously. did I do something to anger the Poseidon of PC gods? This is but a small sample of the **** I've put up with for years, despite (excepting the Radeon 2300 debacle) rigorous research before every purchase. SO WHAT IN THE GODDAMN FREAKING HELL IS GOING ON?
I mean, it's not like I'm bitter or anything.
i remeber how ****ty it was to have to run elite on linedraw mode because the 8086 i was playing it on was too slow for flat shaded mode. it was amazing to run the game on a 486 in an amazing 16 colors. and when elite plus rolled around and offered a full 256 color pallette i was completely blown away. this problem is not new. when it comes right down to it you cant just buy a computer and expect it to play every single title on the shelf. its not a console. if all you play is the upmarket games then you will probably never run into performance issues with a LAME PC! (tm). its those games for pc gamers that need cutting edge hardware that wont exist cheaply for 2 years.
back in the mid-to-late 90s only maybe about 1 in 100 of people who owned computers had a 3d card. i had a voodoo 1 and it was probibly the best purchase i had ever made. it even made me give up consoles. up to that point most games were efficient little machines. games for the most part were designed to work in software at a decent performance. so long as you met all the minimum requirements, you were fine. if you had a 3d card, and the game supported it, it would take that good performance and make it awesome. i remember running descent2 at 120 fps using the 3dfx version. mind you i ran this under dos, so it was just super fast.
figure around the time quake 2 came out gamers were really demanding better graphics and were willing to dish out big money for hardware to play it. that said ive never had problems getting an idtech engine to run on any computer, even one rediculously out of date. some developers are just better than others. there was the time i had some cash and was forced to choose between to games in a bargain bin, one was prey and the other one was fear, these came out around the same time, and my system was more than capable of running either one. so i bought prey cause it was based on an idtech engine. it ran beautifully and was one of the most awesome fpses ever. so now some years later i find fear at a thrift store, and guess what, it runs like ****, and im on better hardware now. prey has a portal engine and it runs faster. id love to give both portal games a go, but that developer is unfamiliar terratory for me.
things took a turn for the worse around the time game developers were getting better at taking advantage of 3d hardware. this meant they no longer had to write tight code like they did when most games ran in software. i ran freespace 1 on a 120 mhz pentium with 24 megs of ram (it came with 8 and i dropped 16 on top of it). that machine ran every game i threw at it. even games with substantially higher system requirements, the reason was because of that voodoo card. i was building computers around that time but they were too expensive to just **** around with. my first experiment with this was going through boxes of apple 2 parts at school and slapping them together until i got working (or toasted) machines. and i was probibly 14 or 15 at the time. i built a few pcs, around that time but i left the manufacture of my machine to experts. so round the time i was 18 i found a place with a made to order pc, you select parts, and they throw it together for you.
by age 20 i was a system builder. so since then ive been building my own computer. companies like dell love to cut corners, they turn huge profits by shaving off a couple bucks here and a couple bucks there and you pay the difference. i find that building your own pc not only gives you a better system, it also saves you money. just learn what you need, and how to read specs and determine compatibility. these days its pretty much case, psu, mobo, cpu, ram, video, and drives. best bet is do some research as to what kind of cpu you want, and based on that research to pick a cpu, then choose a mobo that is compatable with that, then move from there. usually mobo manufacturers list compatable ram, and its best to buy ram thats on that list. buy your video card next. check to make sure its compatable with the board, these days theres only one video standard so its not hard to **** up. pick a decent hd and optical drive (which are becoming less neccisary these days but it makes it easier to load an os). now sum up the power requirements and figure out how many watts you need from your pcs, double it (because psu manufacturers are dirty lieing scum) and buy that. then pick a case that ti will all fit into. mind cooling, 4 fans minimum, bigger fans count as 2, i bought an extra fan for my xclio a380 dispite the twin 25cm fans. there are tutorials online. and if you **** up its not like you spent over a thousand bucks. i have a computer i built for 800 bucks years ago that runs sc2 like it was new. if id have ****ed up building my first computer id have been out 2 grand and thats 90s money.
to sum it up pc gamers are the reason games are made for computers that dont exist yet. if you dont ether drop 3k on a gaming rig that you can run for 4 or 5 years, or 1200 every 2 years, or 800 every 18 months, you will probably be able to keep up with games. this isnt too bad because many parts age better than others. i still got drives from 3 computers ago, a good case will last you a decade, and provided you buy a good psu, you will likely be able to use it for 5 years. buy the best video card you can get your hands on, and do it every 3 years, no exceptions. better to spend $300 on a card that will be good for years, than to spend $150 every year. things like monitors, speakers and input devices keep em until they break. this is why pc gamers are pc gamers, they love to throw money at the problem. if you dont like problems, buy a ****ing console.
-
It's actually usually a mistake to assume that turning everything -down- will improve anything. Because then you're forcing more and more into the CPU and RAM and less into video if you keep lowering the graphics options.
As well, constantly keeping the drivers up to date (on an older than current) card, not so great an idea there either. Especially since ATi loves playing the "Give-and-Take" game with things, -especially- when it comes to supporting older cards. It is my biggest beef with "Unified" drivers, hands down. They don't separate them based on Generation and leave it to "Unified, Within Certain Generations" so that when they update how something is handled so a newer card can do it more effectively, it doesn't break how older cards can do it.
DX9, DX10 and DX11 cards; all should have a Unified Class driver specific to them that after new things stop being possible and nothing is broken, stays right where it is.
And because OpenGL is (mostly) independent of the cards DX Class, if you can back-port something to an older class, at least all the subset stuff still stays the same and it can be better tested for quality assurance SPECIFIC to the range of cards it's classed for.
But neither ATi nor nVidia have happened upon tasking themselves with implementing this intelligent idea. And I'm sure they'd have any number of -excuses- to offer as to why. (And yes, they would be excuses. I don't care -how- solid they might think their "reasoning" is.)
-
Tried the HL2 Demo. Same issue. It's definitely the Source Engine itself my card doesn't like.
The firewall! It was my firewall! I have fluid framerates now for Portal! Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Spose I should have checked that just in case. Oh well.
-
I think you'd better post specs, because this reeks of a configuration issue...
...ah, vindicated. I see it WAS a configuration issue.
Also, Win7 has immensely superior performance to XP in, oh, just about everything. There is no conceivable reason to still be running XP unless your processor either won't support 7, or you have an evil IT department that relies on planned obsolescence in their upgrade cycles.
And furthermore, what Zacam said about turning things down.
-
I feel really dumb for not first checking the firewall/AV affecting it. Well I don't expect firewalls to affect framerates of all things. Oh well. At least it works!
-
For future reference, troubleshooting check list:
1) know your configuration;
2) make sure the graphics and other drivers are updated;
3) use google to see if anyone had a similar problem before posting - if they did, how did they solve it? Try and implement those solutions;
4) after you went through steps 1-3, and still no luck, post your problem on a related forum. Make sure you post your exact system specifications and driver versions. Describe your problem as best you can giving examples where needed. Keep it concise, on topic, and your caps lock in off position at all times.
Those tend to work for me whenever I troubleshoot something :) Anyway, glad you got it sorted.
-
Also, Win7 has immensely superior performance to XP in, oh, just about everything.
No it doesnt
Windows 7 Review: XP vs Vista vs 7 in 80+ Benchmarks
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/reviews/windows_7_review
-
Fact: Holy wars over operating systems are signs of noobness.
-
just correcting a factual error ;)
-
Which omits the most important metric in these cases, namely that raw numbers aren't everything. Vista was slower than XP, but certain interface decisions MS made lead to it appearing to be a LOT slower than it actually was. 7 feels just as responsive as XP, and I submit to you that that is what customers actually care about.
-
not arguing with you on that, just pointing out the line "Win7 has immensely superior performance to XP in, oh, just about everything" isnt true
-
Returning to the topic at hand: If you can afford the price jump, go for NVidia. ATI cards are only really useful if you 1. can't afford something better, or 2. the power supply doesn't have ridiculously high wattage (and you don't want to max it out).
-
Returning to the topic at hand: If you can afford the price jump, go for NVidia. ATI cards are only really useful if you 1. can't afford something better, or 2. the power supply doesn't have ridiculously high wattage (and you don't want to max it out).
What, no. This might have been true, like, 5 years ago, but ATI cards are currently the market leaders for price/performance.
-
Which omits the most important metric in these cases, namely that raw numbers aren't everything. Vista was slower than XP, but certain interface decisions MS made lead to it appearing to be a LOT slower than it actually was. 7 feels just as responsive as XP, and I submit to you that that is what customers actually care about.
win7 won brownie points with me when i installed it my 2004 machine and it outperformed xp64 by a wide margin. they still haven't fixed that annoyingly inefficient file copy performance though. i missed when you could copy gigs in minutes instead of hours. but i have to say its responsiveness that matters. i hate waiting on planetary alignments for files to open and programs to execute.
Returning to the topic at hand: If you can afford the price jump, go for NVidia. ATI cards are only really useful if you 1. can't afford something better, or 2. the power supply doesn't have ridiculously high wattage (and you don't want to max it out).
What, no. This might have been true, like, 5 years ago, but ATI cards are currently the market leaders for price/performance.
it flipflops. i think im gonna wait for nvidia to take the lead again before i buy a new video card. my gtx260 still runs everything ok.
-
Hard disk copy rate can be improved by having your computer defrag while it's idle using Smart Defrag (http://www.iobit.com/downloadcenter.php?product=smart-defrag). (Free program; I also recommend their programs ]Advanced System Care Free (http://www.iobit.com/ascdownload.html) and Game Booster (http://www.iobit.com/gbdownload-promo.html) [free version] -- you don't need the full versions, the free ones work just great, unless you can't be arsed to run ASC manually once in a while or you absolutely have to get max performance on your games.)
In Smart Defrag, make sure to check all the options under the "Boot Defrag" tab on, also go to settings and enable scheduled deep defrag of your hard disks once a week.
No I don't work for them. I use them. Give it a shot, you'll be glad you did. And like I said, don't buy them unless you really want to pay for more convenience. ASC will every few weeks remind you that it can fix more errors with the paid version. That's ok, you don't really need them fixed. The only thing I'd say that makes ASC worth buying is if you really want it out of your hair and automatic.
Also, I use the free program CCleaner (http://www.piriform.com/ccleaner); It has a junk cleaner and registry cleaner that gets a few spots ASC doesn't.
Between these programs and the free version of Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware (http://www.malwarebytes.org/), (full version is one-time fee of ~$30 and adds real-time protection, auto-updates, and scheduled scanning) I keep my computers running pretty darn fast.
+, I personally hate both Norton and McAffee; ditch them and use AVG Free Edition (http://free.avg.com/us-en/homepage). If you want better security and don't mind paying, BitDefender (http://www.bitdefender.com/) is my recommendation. ($40/yr for 3 PCs for basic AV, $60/yr for Internet Security Suite with Firewal etc., and $80/yr for all the bells and whistles you can get. I'd go for the middle option.)
-
i personally DON'T recommend Advanced System Care. it gave me no apparant or measurable performance increase, and caused problems with more than one application.
-
not arguing with you on that, just pointing out the line "Win7 has immensely superior performance to XP in, oh, just about everything" isnt true
That's my bad for using "performance." I should have said it's just all-around superior =) Seriously though, the only reasons to still be using XP are: (1) can't afford to upgrade, (2) hardware doesn't support it, or (3) IT department forces you into it [my work PC]. A lot of gamers give themselves no end of trouble because they've convinced themselves that XP is God's gift to OS', and are trying to run modern games on a 10+ year-old OS that simply was never meant to run them. XP was a great OS, and is still functional, but not for cutting-edge applications (which new games are by their very nature).
But I digress.
-
+, I personally hate both Norton and McAffee; ditch them and use AVG Free Edition (http://free.avg.com/us-en/homepage). If you want better security and don't mind paying, BitDefender (http://www.bitdefender.com/) is my recommendation. ($40/yr for 3 PCs for basic AV, $60/yr for Internet Security Suite with Firewal etc., and $80/yr for all the bells and whistles you can get. I'd go for the middle option.)
Agreed on Norton and McAffee, but disagree on AVG. It has higher overhead than the competition. Surprisingly, the AV to beat right now (in the free realm) is Microsoft's Security Essentials, which is oddly good in comparison testing. I haven't found a compelling reason to switch off Avast!'s free version yet, but if I ever do I plan to check out MSE. A lot of my buddies in IT are raving (positively) about it.
-
I could probably handle 7 on this rig, but I honestly don't see any real reason to upgrade. It's a six-year-old Dell P4 box, so I'm not exactly going to be sinking any more money into it than I have already. Whenever I get the chance to build a shiny new system, of course I'll go with 7, but so long as XP is still supported by MS, I'm fine sticking with it.
-
Hard disk copy rate can be improved by having your computer defrag while it's idle using Smart Defrag (http://www.iobit.com/downloadcenter.php?product=smart-defrag). (Free program; I also recommend their programs ]Advanced System Care Free (http://www.iobit.com/ascdownload.html) and Game Booster (http://www.iobit.com/gbdownload-promo.html) [free version] -- you don't need the full versions, the free ones work just great, unless you can't be arsed to run ASC manually once in a while or you absolutely have to get max performance on your games.)
In Smart Defrag, make sure to check all the options under the "Boot Defrag" tab on, also go to settings and enable scheduled deep defrag of your hard disks once a week.
No I don't work for them. I use them. Give it a shot, you'll be glad you did. And like I said, don't buy them unless you really want to pay for more convenience. ASC will every few weeks remind you that it can fix more errors with the paid version. That's ok, you don't really need them fixed. The only thing I'd say that makes ASC worth buying is if you really want it out of your hair and automatic.
Also, I use the free program CCleaner (http://www.piriform.com/ccleaner); It has a junk cleaner and registry cleaner that gets a few spots ASC doesn't.
Between these programs and the free version of Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware (http://www.malwarebytes.org/), (full version is one-time fee of ~$30 and adds real-time protection, auto-updates, and scheduled scanning) I keep my computers running pretty darn fast.
+, I personally hate both Norton and McAffee; ditch them and use AVG Free Edition (http://free.avg.com/us-en/homepage). If you want better security and don't mind paying, BitDefender (http://www.bitdefender.com/) is my recommendation. ($40/yr for 3 PCs for basic AV, $60/yr for Internet Security Suite with Firewal etc., and $80/yr for all the bells and whistles you can get. I'd go for the middle option.)
its most definately not a fragmentation issue. nor is it a malware issue. it is an inherit inefficiency (possibly caused by drm routines) with the copy routine that has been in use since vista. this kinda thing happens with fresh installs and new partitions.
-
Hard disk copy rate can be improved by having your computer defrag while it's idle using Smart Defrag (http://www.iobit.com/downloadcenter.php?product=smart-defrag). (Free program; I also recommend their programs ]Advanced System Care Free (http://www.iobit.com/ascdownload.html) and Game Booster (http://www.iobit.com/gbdownload-promo.html) [free version] -- you don't need the full versions, the free ones work just great, unless you can't be arsed to run ASC manually once in a while or you absolutely have to get max performance on your games.)
In Smart Defrag, make sure to check all the options under the "Boot Defrag" tab on, also go to settings and enable scheduled deep defrag of your hard disks once a week.
No I don't work for them. I use them. Give it a shot, you'll be glad you did. And like I said, don't buy them unless you really want to pay for more convenience. ASC will every few weeks remind you that it can fix more errors with the paid version. That's ok, you don't really need them fixed. The only thing I'd say that makes ASC worth buying is if you really want it out of your hair and automatic.
Also, I use the free program CCleaner (http://www.piriform.com/ccleaner); It has a junk cleaner and registry cleaner that gets a few spots ASC doesn't.
Between these programs and the free version of Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware (http://www.malwarebytes.org/), (full version is one-time fee of ~$30 and adds real-time protection, auto-updates, and scheduled scanning) I keep my computers running pretty darn fast.
+, I personally hate both Norton and McAffee; ditch them and use AVG Free Edition (http://free.avg.com/us-en/homepage). If you want better security and don't mind paying, BitDefender (http://www.bitdefender.com/) is my recommendation. ($40/yr for 3 PCs for basic AV, $60/yr for Internet Security Suite with Firewal etc., and $80/yr for all the bells and whistles you can get. I'd go for the middle option.)
its most definately not a fragmentation issue. nor is it a malware issue. it is an inherit inefficiency (possibly caused by drm routines) with the copy routine that has been in use since vista. this kinda thing happens with fresh installs and new partitions.
I can attest to this. Recently I've been routinely copying hundreds of gigabytes of data.
Even rudimentary benchmarking has shown Vista/7 to be a lot slower then XP/Ubuntu.
-
Hard disk copy rate can be improved by having your computer defrag while it's idle using Smart Defrag (http://www.iobit.com/downloadcenter.php?product=smart-defrag). (Free program; I also recommend their programs ]Advanced System Care Free (http://www.iobit.com/ascdownload.html) and Game Booster (http://www.iobit.com/gbdownload-promo.html) [free version] -- you don't need the full versions, the free ones work just great, unless you can't be arsed to run ASC manually once in a while or you absolutely have to get max performance on your games.)
In Smart Defrag, make sure to check all the options under the "Boot Defrag" tab on, also go to settings and enable scheduled deep defrag of your hard disks once a week.
Why would I use programs that actively interfere with the self-optimization routines Windows 7 and Vista employ?
+, I personally hate both Norton and McAffee; ditch them and use AVG Free Edition (http://free.avg.com/us-en/homepage). If you want better security and don't mind paying, BitDefender (http://www.bitdefender.com/) is my recommendation. ($40/yr for 3 PCs for basic AV, $60/yr for Internet Security Suite with Firewal etc., and $80/yr for all the bells and whistles you can get. I'd go for the middle option.)
Microsoft Security Essentials FTW. All the security, none of the nagging to buy the commercial version and none of the "look at me I am here protecting you" security theater.
-
Microsoft Security Essentials FTW. All the security, none of the nagging to buy the commercial version and none of the "look at me I am here protecting you" security theater.
+1
-
i personally DON'T recommend Advanced System Care. it gave me no apparant or measurable performance increase, and caused problems with more than one application.
Which version, and what app? Right now I'm running ASC 4, but I've also been running ASC 3 with no problems. And, if you run such utilities as CCleaner and Malwarebytes, there is a great deal of overlap in what is cleaned so you may not notice it. I just like being thorough (until it comes to paying, then I think I don't need to be that thorough! :lol:
-
i tend to avoid 3rd party performance tuning and system maintenance applications. il run avg, and rarely a spyware scanner and a registry utility (and only when the need arises, and when im done i usually uninstall them). i find background utilities to be counter-intuitive. you free up cpu time by reducing concurrent process, not increasing them. windows runs enough mysterious processes in the background and i dont need to add to it.
-
I don't use anti-virus apps that run in the background all the time. I know how to identify and avoid suspect sites and harmful emails and that alone reduces my chances of being infected by a huge amount. If I suspect my computer might have been infected by something I'll temporarily install an anti virus to deal with it, provided I can't remove it manually using stuff like hijack this to identify problems, etc.
In general, however, I find that resident anti virus applications waste a hell of a lot more of my time and system resources than a virus ever would, and the irony is not lost on me. Before someone assumes that I've been doing this for a short time and it'll result in a disaster, I've been doing this for at least 5 years and have no problems to report. My current i7 based system chugs along just fine and I'm perfectly happy not wasting cpu-run time on needless background processes.
-
That's my bad for using "performance." I should have said it's just all-around superior =) Seriously though, the only reasons to still be using XP are: (1) can't afford to upgrade, (2) hardware doesn't support it, or (3) IT department forces you into it [my work PC]. A lot of gamers give themselves no end of trouble because they've convinced themselves that XP is God's gift to OS', and are trying to run modern games on a 10+ year-old OS that simply was never meant to run them. XP was a great OS, and is still functional, but not for cutting-edge applications (which new games are by their very nature).
But I digress.
I still use XP on my desktop because the Yamaha SYXG50 softsynth driver only exists for XP, and I haven't had time to upgrade anyway. I play D2X-XL a lot, which uses midi music and benefits from it immensely. However, after looking into it recently it may actually be possible to get this thing working on 7 with some hacks. If I can get it working on my laptop that runs 7, I will switch over to 7 on the main machine as well.
At the same time, the only reasons I want 7 are the 64-bit support (for computational programs) and maybe the nicer interface (I use this theme (http://djabytown.deviantart.com/art/Dark-Agility-Visual-Style-148691785)). It has no other benefits over XP as far as I'm concerned, even for games.
-
XP can't do DX10+.
-
There are very few games where DX11 actually does anything substantial though (and practically none at all for DX10). PC games these days are all designed around DX9 era console hardware, with occasionally a few token effects tacked on for the PC version.
-
That's my bad for using "performance." I should have said it's just all-around superior =) Seriously though, the only reasons to still be using XP are: (1) can't afford to upgrade, (2) hardware doesn't support it, or (3) IT department forces you into it [my work PC]. A lot of gamers give themselves no end of trouble because they've convinced themselves that XP is God's gift to OS', and are trying to run modern games on a 10+ year-old OS that simply was never meant to run them. XP was a great OS, and is still functional, but not for cutting-edge applications (which new games are by their very nature).
But I digress.
I still use XP on my desktop because the Yamaha SYXG50 softsynth driver only exists for XP, and I haven't had time to upgrade anyway. I play D2X-XL a lot, which uses midi music and benefits from it immensely. However, after looking into it recently it may actually be possible to get this thing working on 7 with some hacks. If I can get it working on my laptop that runs 7, I will switch over to 7 on the main machine as well.
If you ever get that working....
(http://www.inquisitr.com/wp-content/do-want.jpg)
-
Microsoft Security Essentials FTW. All the security, none of the nagging to buy the commercial version and none of the "look at me I am here protecting you" security theater.
+1
Forgive this late, somewhat ignorant interjection, but what is the difference between this and the default (possibly better stated as "defail") Windows security software like Defender, Firewall, etc.?
On another note, Avira Free is a nice little program, which I used as a supplemental scanner once I thought I had a virus the other day. If you are in want of free software, that's not a bad one to consider. My primary software remains Trend Micro, however.
-
MSE is a full malware scanner. Together with the built-in Firewall, you have a pretty good security solution in place that will catch all the common attacks without any noticeable performance hit and without nagging you every ten seconds for something. Defender is a built-in virus scanner that is pretty useless on its own and deactivated as soon as something else is installed.
-
Just in case anyone was getting the wrong idea, AVG Free doesn't nag you... unless you call the little ad banner under the main scanner window a nag, or asking you maybe once a month if you'd like to upgrade. Although it has gotten a bit more bloated in the last few releases...
MS Security Essentials I've stayed away from because I've seen a few issues with it not updating, not launching properly. However, those were probably due to the customer's "money-saving" having only 256MB RAM with XPSP3 and multiple windows of office, IE, etc open. 2GB and he's good to go, but I had to tinker with his services, I think because Windows disabled some of them so it could breathe. So, everyone thinks that it's a great AV.. good detection rates, all that?
-
From all the tests I've seen, it consistently scores high enough for me to keep using it. Also, it seems they've finally nailed the "MSE doesn't update itself" issue, which was the biggest thing against it for a while.
-
Umm... Ati cards run Source just fine. Not sure what your issue is but i got a 5870 in one machine and a 4870x2 in the other and framerates in HL2:ep2, Portal, Portal 2 etc. are absolutely smooth.
Current Source Engine games run perfectly smooth, maxed and in 1920/1200 without requiring any kind of significant percentage of either cards maximum processing power.
Returning to the topic at hand: If you can afford the price jump, go for NVidia. ATI cards are only really useful if you 1. can't afford something better, or 2. the power supply doesn't have ridiculously high wattage (and you don't want to max it out).
I'm not really loyal to either brand. For this generation of cards it was hands down ATI for power efficiency, noise and raw performance however.
I like powerful computers... but they always double as work machines and are usually on for long hours so noise and power efficiency is definitely an issue for me.
That's for desktops. Laptops it's Nvidia all the way currently with dynamic power saving and overall performance.
As far as games and compatibility goes i don't have a single issue with either brand. I just do some research before installing drivers (which i would say is required with either brand - both Nvidia and ATI have had drivers with huge issues now and then - which however can usually be easily avoided by a short visit to google.)
-
If you ever get that working....
The idea is to output the midi commands to a virtual midi port driver and run that back into a midi sequencer program for playback. There are some obscure VSTI versions of the Yamaha synths that can be used for this (they were only sold in Japan but can be found online). This thread (http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=169094&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=373cb1e0cdc7284a1ed0aa693f59a7eb) has a lot of information on it. I have the VSTI host program working now but not the virtual midi port, although there a couple of free options for this with native support for 7.
That's for desktops. Laptops it's Nvidia all the way currently with dynamic power saving and overall performance.
I prefer the manually switchable AMD/Intel setups over Optimus and specifically tried to avoid Optimus when I got a laptop recently. From what I'm reading there are still quite a few games that have issues with Optimus, and it cannot be overriden manually. Nvidia does have nice higher end (non-Optimus) options on laptops though.