Forum Settings
       
This Forum is Read Only

Best OS for it?Follow

#1 Jul 11 2010 at 5:04 PM Rating: Decent
*
61 posts
What would be the best OS for FFXIV: XP, Vista, or 7? I'm a mac user who doesn't pay much attention to windows; I just boot camp XP on my macbook pro to play ffxi. But with FFXIV, maybe XP isn't enough; does anyone have details on it?
____________________________
Character name: Variyen
(Before my Character was deleted — Jobs: 33 RDM, 20 PLD, 10 NIN, 8 MNK, 6 WAR)
Now: 23 RDM
Server: Asura
#2 Jul 11 2010 at 5:06 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
602 posts
XP is more efficient and has DirectX 9.0c. FFXIV at the moment does not support DX10/11 and I don't think it ever will. FFXIV is basically what they wanted FFXI to be but they chose to make it for the PS2 first. I am going to be running it on XP for efficiency and less chance of background programs running that are on 7. Windows 7 works too, it is just as efficient as XP. Vista, hit or miss. XP or 7.

Edited, Jul 11th 2010 7:07pm by Excenmille
#3 Jul 11 2010 at 5:48 PM Rating: Excellent
*
209 posts
XP is EOL so your only going to get security updates. I just switched over to windows 7, if anything my games improved!
#4 Jul 11 2010 at 5:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
XP is being phased out so I'd advise against putting it on anything anymore. 7 is very solid, Vista not so much. I'm very content running 7, personally.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#5 Jul 11 2010 at 5:56 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
602 posts
TheBSTGuy wrote:
XP is EOL so your only going to get security updates. I just switched over to windows 7, if anything my games improved!


Windows XP SP2 is not getting anymore security updates. Windows XP SP3 on the other hand is supported until 2014. Been seeing a lot of misinformation being given to other people lately, not saying from you just saying in general on other sites. Windows XP SP3 will continue to receive updates for 3 more years. If you're using SP2 than yeah, might want to finally install that SP3 :-P Due to popular belief, it does not slow down your system anymore at all.

Now don't get me wrong, love 7. But I get better FPS on Windows XP SP3 because I don't have the slowdown of using DX10 or 11. Sure I suffer from not having those "Ooooooo pretty!" moments. But I play BFBC2/MW2 to kill people. I don't really care much for graphics personally. If you are a graphics person, 7 is for you. If you want game play, XP is still viable til 2014. And yes I know you can turn off DX10/11 in some games but others you can only turn down a few things. At least in XP is forces DX 9.

Edited, Jul 11th 2010 8:00pm by Excenmille
#6 Jul 11 2010 at 6:00 PM Rating: Good
**
423 posts
Quote:
XP is more efficient and has DirectX 9.0c


not... really.

If you know what you are doing with Windows you won't bother getting XP. With a few minor customizations Windows 7 ( i don't touch vista), will run just as well as Windows XP.

If you have a computer decent enough to run FFXIV at a decent framerate and still decide to downgrade to an OS that is basically only 32bit supported, since 64bit XP has awful driver support... You will never have over 3.5gb of ram and you will never have over Direct x 9c even if the card can perform much better. Not to mention any other game purchased that does use anything above DX 9 it will basically be rendered moot because you decided to go with the oldie.

I don't know it's kind of obvious in my opinion.

Quote:
less chance of background programs running that are on 7.


What programs?

P.S. I love windows XP, but from a technological standpoint to FFXIV it's not good in any way. You are limiting yourself to buying 2 OS's eventually or minimizing how well the game is going to run. Windows 7 isn't as good but because of the newer DX's and the significantly better 64bit support... yeah kinda hands down.

P.S.S. For everyone complaining 7 is so much slower are you turning things like Windows Aero off? I probably bet you are not...

Edited, Jul 11th 2010 6:01pm by boriss
#8 Jul 11 2010 at 6:06 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
602 posts
Well, with Windows XP I don't have to mess with DX10/DX11 graphic additions slowing my game play down a lot. And yeah don't have to mess with UAC and turning Aero off. I am not bashing Windows 7. But for my tastes of game play over graphics, XP SP3 fits me best. Eventually with an upgraded, future proof system I may switch back to Windows 7. But for now XP SP3 does what I need it to do without messing with all of those other settings to streamline 7.

Windows 7 offers me nothing but lower FPS at the moment. I don't care about DX10/11. Some people do :)

@Mod: Wow nice post remove lol. That was fast!

Edited, Jul 11th 2010 8:07pm by Excenmille
#9 Jul 11 2010 at 6:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
**
629 posts
It depends on your system really, for me with an i5 750 @3.5ghz, 8gb of ram and two 5850's (total ram = 10gb) then XP would bottleneck my system hugely.

XP (32bit is the only good version of XP, lets be honest here) can only take 4gb of ram total, where as 7 (64bit) can take a stupid amount of RAM (128+gb).
#10 Jul 11 2010 at 6:13 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
602 posts
That is true too, but you can also use Windows XP Pro 64-bit but they stopped at SP2 for that and I believe that OS is also outdated just like the 32-bit SP2 variant. Honestly though as of right now I can't even name a game that uses even close to max of 4GB including what the OS needs to run. So for now I think it's a valid point for the more RAM issue, but invalid because no game uses tons of RAM like that. Metro 2033/Crysis don't even come close to using all that RAM.

Any RAM higher than 4GB is usually used for Windows Server/Linux/Data Centers. So yeah. Waste of money until there is a game + OS that actually needs more than 4GBs of RAM to run without bottlenecks. Besides, modern GPUs alleviate some of the RAM issues now too so dunno. Your money.

Edited, Jul 11th 2010 8:16pm by Excenmille
#11 Jul 11 2010 at 6:22 PM Rating: Good
*
209 posts
Quote:
Windows 7 offers me nothing but lower FPS at the moment. I don't care about DX10/11. Some people do :)

I was getting 50~100fps in BF:BC 2 with xp and I am getting 50~100FPS with windows 7. Where is the lower fps?
#12 Jul 11 2010 at 6:41 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
602 posts
Unfortunately I don't have a dual-boot setup to prove that wrong right now and honestly surprised there's no Youtube videos up of the comparisons etc. But I highly doubt you get the same FPS on 7 compared to XP SP3. 7 taxes the GPU with 10/11 whereas XP SP3 would only use DX 9. But the FPS isn't that much of a difference. Maybe 5-15 FPS. Depending on your system and the age of it and what it can handle, 5-15 FPS can be a lot. Obviously it won't make a difference if you're getting a constant 30 fps+ and no juttering. Anything over 60 fps is over kill lol. But must be pretty awesome gameplay at 100 fps.

BST do you have Battlefield 2142 by any chance?

Edited, Jul 11th 2010 8:43pm by Excenmille
#13 Jul 11 2010 at 6:45 PM Rating: Good
**
423 posts
Quote:
Windows XP Pro 64-bit


If you have even used it you would know it is one of the most brutal 64bit OS's ever. Good luck getting drivers for all your needed peripherals that work properly... i am not kidding.

Quote:
any RAM higher than 4GB is usually used for Windows Server/Linux/Data Centers.


Also not true. Every data entry computer at my work has or will have 4GB of ram or greater in it. Simply because of the amount of software they use and due to network garbage enforced by IT, the computer will slowdown.

Our servers usually have anywhere from 8gb to 32gb and a few actually even have more then that... but what do i know.

Any computer basically has 2-4GB of ram standard in it now. That's basically saying the bare minimum. Not to mention if you ever plan to upgrade your PC you will need a 64bit OS anyways..

P.S. My work only currently employs windows XP due to user acceptance testing Etc that needs to be done, we are kind of a small company so it won't be anytime soon that we switch to 64bit windows 7



Edited, Jul 11th 2010 6:53pm by boriss
#14 Jul 11 2010 at 6:47 PM Rating: Good
*
209 posts
Quote:
BST do you have 2142 by any chance?
No I dont have it. And I dont get a constant 100fps but it will go up that high depending on the area. My fps stays between 50fps to 100fps depending on whats going on and the area.
#15 Jul 11 2010 at 8:17 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
I would not recommend getting a new computer with less than 4 GB for anyone.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#16 Jul 11 2010 at 8:22 PM Rating: Decent
*
209 posts
Quote:
I would not recommend getting a new computer with less than 4 GB for anyone.
I can remember when people laughed at me because I was running 256MB of ram. They said "theres no way a PC will ever use more then 128MB of ram you wasted your money!" Now look lol 4GB is considered the low standard now LOL
#17 Jul 11 2010 at 8:25 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Yeah, funny how computer requirements keep increasing at an exponential rate. Gotta plateau somewhere, right? C'est la vie.



Edited, Jul 11th 2010 9:26pm by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#18 Jul 11 2010 at 8:29 PM Rating: Default
*
209 posts
Quote:
Gotta plateau somewhere, right?
As long as their is money to be made its never going to plateau.

P.S. around 2000 this super smart IT guy told me that they are only going to be able to get the processor so fast before it peaks. And he said then they are going to go multi processor. I laughed at him, so who knows you may be right =P

Edited, Jul 11th 2010 10:31pm by TheBSTGuy

Edited, Jul 11th 2010 10:31pm by TheBSTGuy
#19 Jul 11 2010 at 8:35 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Yeah, processor speed is exactly what I was thinking of.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#20 Jul 11 2010 at 8:37 PM Rating: Decent
*
209 posts
Quote:
Yeah, processor speed is exactly what I was thinking of.
They are going to keep adding more cores. Next year we will see 8 core processors! (Which is one of the reasons I want to hold out on a new pc as long as I can)
#21 Jul 11 2010 at 10:04 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
This computer is NEVER obsolete

Let's see...

I remember my first BLAZING FAST 28.8 modem after upgrading from 14.4.

I remember my first hard drive, 40 MB. It was HUGE and there's NO WAY you're going to fill a FORTY MEGABYTE HD. Ever.

I remember Norton Change Directory. A graphical (I use the term loosely) interface? You mean I don't have to type DIR and/or memorize names of files? Holy ****.

I remember the addition of long file names (9 or more characters). You mean I can actually call the file "Letter to Grandma" and not "GRMALETR.DOC"?

Bold, Italic, and Underlining? In -my- word processor? Surely, you jest.

I remember my first Windows system. You mean I can aim this mouse doohickey at things and click on them? Preposterous.

I remember when you could put a CD in a computer, and listen to music.

I remember when upgrading from 16 MB graphics to 64 mb was a huge deal.

Sigh...
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#22 Jul 11 2010 at 10:26 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
178 posts
LOL Mik.... I remember all those things as well, and I believe you would agree with me when I say you are OLD!!!

I remember when my first RAM upgrades cost me $250 for 4 MB, and I had to have it installed by Office Depot because "nobody who wasn't an expert could do it without breaking their stuff."

And to actually add something to the conversation, I am running Windows 7 64-bit (which if you are going WIN7 is the only way to fly), and I have had zero issues with it running anything... even Vanguard SOH and LOTO runs flawlessly in 1920x1080 on ultra high, and background stuff hasn't been a problem. Neither has the nearly hourly hang ups that I used to have with Vista.
____________________________

#23 Jul 12 2010 at 12:12 AM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
daveawrit wrote:
LOL Mik.... I remember all those things as well, and I believe you would agree with me when I say you are OLD!!!


My first system was an 8088. I learned to read as a child on the ORIGINAL Reader Rabbit. That should give you a rough idea of my age.

Call me jaded and cynical, but considering that I grew up (literally) with an 8088 DOS system, and later a 286, I always chuckle silently to myself whenever I hear parents talking about their child who "already knows how to use a computer, and he/she is only in kindergarten!". I mean, I know the parent is proud of their kid, and there's nothing wrong with that; I just think about how much easier it is to "learn the computer" nowadays. Most parents teach their kids "te-le-vi-sion" and "ham-bur-ger", my dad also taught me how to navigate to C:\RRABBIT\RABBIT.EXE (or whatever the file was). It was kinda funny when I had to take an A+ hardware/software class as part of my college curriculum and I finished the DOS portion in two days. I think I'm too young to go on an "In my day..." rant, so I'll cut it short here. I -have- asked kids to get off my lawn though.

daveawrit wrote:
And to actually add something to the conversation, I am running Windows 7 64-bit (which if you are going WIN7 is the only way to fly), and I have had zero issues with it running anything... even Vanguard SOH and LOTO runs flawlessly in 1920x1080 on ultra high, and background stuff hasn't been a problem. Neither has the nearly hourly hang ups that I used to have with Vista.


I put off upgrading from XP through the entirety of Vista (Although I did end up with a pair of laptops that came with Vista installed and just sorta left it on both since the effort of finding Linux-based or XP-based drivers for an Insipron and a Vostro was too much effort for minimal return. I'm still debating replacing my Inspiron's Vista with Ubuntu though. Never had the enthusiasm to do it.

At any rate, when I gutted my PC in preperation for XIV (Actually, my video card was giving me massive artifacts in Fallout 3 and I couldn't fix it; solution was either to replace with a low end card like a 4650, or I could replace it with something nice like a 5770, but then I'd need to replace MB, CPU, PSU, RAM... so I did. Figured now was as good a time as any to upgrade to 7x64 Pro. So I did that too.

I love it, and have very little complaints, aside from the occasional weird issue (which no OS is immune to)
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#24 Jul 12 2010 at 12:12 AM Rating: Decent
Thief's Knife
*****
15,053 posts
So far it looks like Windows 7 64-bit comes out a few 100's faster on the benchmark score despite FFXIV being a 32-bit DirectX 9.0 game.

It's a tiny difference but still surprising because you would expect the opposite to be the case.
____________________________
Final Fantasy XI 12-14-11 Update wrote:
Adjust the resolution of menus.
The main screen resolution for "FINAL FANTASY XI" is dependent on the "Overlay Graphics Resolution" setting.
If the Overlay Graphics Resolution is set higher than the Menu Resolution, menus will be automatically resized.


I thought of it first:

http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=10&mid=130073657654872218#20
#25 Jul 12 2010 at 12:22 AM Rating: Decent
Thief's Knife
*****
15,053 posts
TheBSTGuy wrote:
Quote:
Gotta plateau somewhere, right?
As long as their is money to be made its never going to plateau.

P.S. around 2000 this super smart IT guy told me that they are only going to be able to get the processor so fast before it peaks. And he said then they are going to go multi processor. I laughed at him, so who knows you may be right =P


There are hard physical limits that they will eventually run into. It's called "The Tyranny of Numbers" They had run into this with mainframes before integrated circuits were developed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_numbers

Basically, they couldn't make mainframes any more powerful because they couldn't increase the complexity. It simply required too many wires to fit into a given space.

They got around it by putting multiple transistors in an single component. But eventually this will come back to bite us in the *** again. They will run into the limits of how many cores you can put on a single chip, then they'll run into the limit of how many CPUs you can put into a single computer. Finally they will run into the limits of how many computers can be networked together.

There is also the limit of how small you can make a transistor, but that's separate from this.



Edited, Jul 12th 2010 3:27am by Lobivopis
____________________________
Final Fantasy XI 12-14-11 Update wrote:
Adjust the resolution of menus.
The main screen resolution for "FINAL FANTASY XI" is dependent on the "Overlay Graphics Resolution" setting.
If the Overlay Graphics Resolution is set higher than the Menu Resolution, menus will be automatically resized.


I thought of it first:

http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=10&mid=130073657654872218#20
#26 Jul 12 2010 at 12:29 AM Rating: Decent
Thief's Knife
*****
15,053 posts
Mikhalia wrote:
[quote=daveawrit]
My first system was an 8088. I learned to read as a child on the ORIGINAL Reader Rabbit. That should give you a rough idea of my age.


My first computer was a Commodore VIC-20
____________________________
Final Fantasy XI 12-14-11 Update wrote:
Adjust the resolution of menus.
The main screen resolution for "FINAL FANTASY XI" is dependent on the "Overlay Graphics Resolution" setting.
If the Overlay Graphics Resolution is set higher than the Menu Resolution, menus will be automatically resized.


I thought of it first:

http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=10&mid=130073657654872218#20
#27 Jul 12 2010 at 12:48 AM Rating: Decent
*****
11,539 posts
Lobivopis wrote:
TheBSTGuy wrote:
Quote:
Gotta plateau somewhere, right?
As long as their is money to be made its never going to plateau.

P.S. around 2000 this super smart IT guy told me that they are only going to be able to get the processor so fast before it peaks. And he said then they are going to go multi processor. I laughed at him, so who knows you may be right =P


There are hard physical limits that they will eventually run into. It's called "The Tyranny of Numbers" They had run into this with mainframes before integrated circuits were developed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_numbers

Basically, they couldn't make mainframes any more powerful because they couldn't increase the complexity. It simply required too many wires to fit into a given space.

They got around it by putting multiple transistors in an single component. But eventually this will come back to bite us in the *** again. They will run into the limits of how many cores you can put on a single chip, then they'll run into the limit of how many CPUs you can put into a single computer. Finally they will run into the limits of how many computers can be networked together.

There is also the limit of how small you can make a transistor, but that's separate from this.


Most home systems are still single processor systems, so multi processor systems, which are currently used primarily in businesses, for home use seems like the next logical step after maxing out cores.

Honestly though, at the risk of making a "no one should ever need more than 640k of RAM" type comment (Which Bill Gates denies having made, but I digress)...

The only use for high performance machines that need i7 processors, or would find themselves eventually wanting a multiprocessor, are:

- Gamers
- Video/Graphic designers
- Programmers
- Servers

For the level that technology is currently at, I can't see the "average home user" (you know, the "I just check my e-book and my facemail" type) ever NEEDING more than a dual core processor, and even THAT is pushing it; a 1.5 GHz single core processor should be more than enough for this type of user. Even the current el cheapo boxes that run ~300ish with a Sempron/Celeron, 2 GB RAM, and a 300-500 GB HD are more than sufficient for YEARS to come. 95% of the "Internet and email" users are extremely unlikely to ever get their hard drives to 15-20% capacity, unless they suddenly start storing an -assload- of photos and music on them.

Doesn't help that box stores upsell them to "This computer, which is way faster and has a lot more gigawhatzits for only ~$1000" that they'll never need. Whenever I think of all the poor sticks of RAM and the poor processors and hard drives that will remain underutilized till the day they die, it makes me a sad panda. It's like selling a Ferrari to a little old lady who only drives it to church on Sundays.

There are 11 types of users; people who would actually benefit from the most powerful systems on the market, people who would see little benefit from anything above a doorstop system, and people who might actually use a midrange system to its full potential without ever needing more than it can offer. That last group is TINY.

Lobivopis wrote:
Mikhalia wrote:
[quote=daveawrit]
My first system was an 8088. I learned to read as a child on the ORIGINAL Reader Rabbit. That should give you a rough idea of my age.


My first computer was a Commodore VIC-20


/salute
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#28 Jul 12 2010 at 1:02 AM Rating: Decent
*
209 posts
Quote:
I remember when upgrading from 16 MB graphics to 64 mb was a huge deal
I remember when I was KING of the block when I upgraded to a 64MB 3dfx voodo card LOL. My friends were so impressed LOL, now I tell them I have a 275GTX 896MB and they are like "Oh a budget card". But they are single and I am now married and saving for retirement. I'm 4yrs to 40 I dont want to be flipping burgers @ 70 lol. 24 more years and I will be seeing the world, and as fast as time goes it will be here before you know it!
#29 Jul 12 2010 at 1:14 AM Rating: Excellent
***
3,811 posts
Thanks Mik, all this talk of 8088 & 80286, actual differences in "Modem" speeds, along with Reader Rabbit is making me feel older than I am. Even more so as just yesterday I was over at a friend's house and their daughter was taking typing lessons from Mavis. She didn't believe me when I told her that lady's mom taught me how to type fast...

Now I have all sorts of things coming to mind. Oh god, just remembered back when Jumpers were plastered everywhere on boards and not a label in sight.


To the OP, if your building a new rig go with Win 7 64bit, you won't be disappointed. I have been running windows since you had to load it from DOS. That said, Windows XP Pro (32bit) has long been my favorite and I still reinstall it on most older systems I work on. I see Vista as nothing more than a beta for 7. I could never go back to using XP after making the switch, Win 7 is just that solid.

____________________________

Quote:
The Path to **** is paved with good intentions.
#30 Jul 12 2010 at 1:45 AM Rating: Decent
Sage
***
1,675 posts
Lobivopis wrote:


My first computer was a Commodore VIC-20


Mine too!

I had a few games on carts and a tape machine that ran a text driven rpg.


I was blown away by my 'multimedia' Packard Bell a few years later that could play a grainy video in a small box.


It amazes me how prevalent technology is for the masses today and how obscure and archaic it was just in my short life time.

#31 Jul 12 2010 at 1:48 AM Rating: Good
Kierk wrote:
Lobivopis wrote:


My first computer was a Commodore VIC-20


Mine too!

I had a few games on carts and a tape machine that ran a text driven rpg.


I was blown away by my 'multimedia' Packard Bell a few years later that could play a grainy video in a small box.


It amazes me how prevalent technology is for the masses today and how obscure and archaic it was just in my short life time.



My 1st Windows PC was a Packard Bell. 1st ever PC was a Commodore-64. I'm fairly certain the Commodore was a more solid PC than the Packard Bell. What a nightmare that thing was.
#32 Jul 12 2010 at 1:50 AM Rating: Decent
*
209 posts
My first pc that I ever pruched for myself was a AMD K62 350MHZ 128mb of ram 16MB video card creative sound card and a DVD player with a encoder. I payed over $1100 for that system lol.
#33 Jul 12 2010 at 3:04 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,457 posts
My first PC was a macintosh power pc 180mhz :D

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/99/Power_Macintosh_5500.png/250px-Power_Macintosh_5500.png
^ Yeah baby! My Doom/Wolfenstein3D machine !

Edited, Jul 12th 2010 2:06am by GuardianFaith


Quote:
But they are single and I am now married and saving for retirement. I'm 4yrs to 40 I dont want to be flipping burgers @ 70 lol. 24 more years and I will be seeing the world, and as fast as time goes it will be here before you know it!


I'm married too and for some reason hearing that made me feel really depressed. :/

Edited, Jul 12th 2010 2:08am by GuardianFaith
____________________________
Hunter Avril
Rogue Ultra
Paladin Awhellnah
Mage Shantotto
Shaman Lakshmi
Faith (Valefor)

#34 Jul 12 2010 at 4:42 AM Rating: Good
*
209 posts
Quote:
I'm married too and for some reason hearing that made me feel really depressed. :/
Its the truth the years are flying now, my grandmother once told me the older you get the faster time flies by. And so far shes right! =/
Here is something that will really make you sad. Say I only live until I am 70 years old, thats only 29 more summers. Thinking like that really makes me sad!
#35 Jul 12 2010 at 6:21 AM Rating: Good
**
782 posts
Quote:
For the level that technology is currently at, I can't see the "average home user" (you know, the "I just check my e-book and my facemail" type) ever NEEDING more than a dual core processor, and even THAT is pushing it; a 1.5 GHz single core processor should be more than enough for this type of user.


Haven't been keeping up with what they are pushing web browsers to do these days eh?
#36 Jul 12 2010 at 12:48 PM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
Kyoshindi wrote:
Thanks Mik, all this talk of 8088 & 80286, actual differences in "Modem" speeds, along with Reader Rabbit is making me feel older than I am. Even more so as just yesterday I was over at a friend's house and their daughter was taking typing lessons from Mavis. She didn't believe me when I told her that lady's mom taught me how to type fast...

Now I have all sorts of things coming to mind. Oh god, just remembered back when Jumpers were plastered everywhere on boards and not a label in sight.


Ditto on part 2. Also, Mavis Beacon's Daughter -also- teaches typing? Did not know that. I learned to type on this game though. writer Rabbit, Reader Rabbit, and Mario Teaches Typing for basic reading/writing/typing and other stuff like Hugo and the old Lucasarts games as I got older.

Kierk wrote:
Lobivopis wrote:


My first computer was a Commodore VIC-20


Mine too!

I had a few games on carts and a tape machine that ran a text driven rpg.


I was blown away by my 'multimedia' Packard Bell a few years later that could play a grainy video in a small box.


It amazes me how prevalent technology is for the masses today and how obscure and archaic it was just in my short life time.



Ditto for the Packard Bell. I remember that thing came with like 12 free programs; 3D Dinosaur Adventure (with glasses) Journeyman Turbo, Encarta (Remember encarta?), a Spiderman comic maker, some other stuff I forget... we still have the CD-ROMs.

I'm also kinda astounded at how far technology has come; nowadays you're starting to see cell phone plans for 13 year olds or even 8 year olds... when I was that age and my mom wanted me, she just opened the front door and yelled really loudly; same as her parents did it. They called it the "Baltimore Pager System". While I certainly don't miss dialup and the idea that a site with more than 2-3 .gifs on it meant you had to go make a sandwich while the page loaded, I do miss the childish naivete of being able to go for a walk without having to worry about kids getting abducted, raped, and killed. Possibly not even in that order.

Sigh.

My main regrets are that my children will never know the joys I had growing up. ****, most toddlers today aren't familiar with the concept of toys that don't talk/play music/make noise. One of my cousins brought her kid over once; I was letting him look through some of my old toys in the basement and he actually asked me "What does it do?" about one of my stuffed animals. Although to be fair, my first teddy bear talked. Actually, I think it just repeated what I said back to me, I can't remember. I still have it, it just hasn't worked in ages. It's not one of those Teddy Ruxpin bears; it's gray with an orange button on its chest. I don't know the name of it; used to call him "Friend bear". Shut up, I was like two or three or something.

I'm getting off on a massive tangent though.

TheBSTGuy wrote:
Quote:
I'm married too and for some reason hearing that made me feel really depressed. :/
Its the truth the years are flying now, my grandmother once told me the older you get the faster time flies by. And so far shes right! =/
Here is something that will really make you sad. Say I only live until I am 70 years old, that's only 29 more summers. Thinking like that really makes me sad!


If you think of life in terms of how long you have left, it will always depress you. Especially when you consider that you have no idea how long you have left. You or I could just as easily get hit by a runaway 18 wheeler and die tomorrow. You could have a heart attack in your sleep tonight. How's that for **** depressing?

Actually, this whole freaking post is depressing. Oh, to be an ignorant whelp once more, where my only care in the world was whether to follow the directions that came with the legos or try to figure it out myself.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#37 Jul 12 2010 at 1:04 PM Rating: Decent
*****
11,539 posts
windexy wrote:
Quote:
For the level that technology is currently at, I can't see the "average home user" (you know, the "I just check my e-book and my facemail" type) ever NEEDING more than a dual core processor, and even THAT is pushing it; a 1.5 GHz single core processor should be more than enough for this type of user.


Haven't been keeping up with what they are pushing web browsers to do these days eh?


At the risk of sounding like an ignorant ******... excluding flash, what do "typical web users" need to do with web browsers need to do that is really all that demanding?

I mean, I know that there are some pages that practically vomit "Look at how much time our web developer has on his hands" (finalfantasyxiv.com comes to mind. So do doritos.com and bk.com), but what does a web/email only user do that really requires a quad/hexacore processor, 500-1000 GB HD, and 6-8 GB of RAM?
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
#38 Jul 12 2010 at 10:59 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,457 posts
Quote:
You or I could just as easily get hit by a runaway 18 wheeler and die tomorrow.


This on the other hand does not depress me. Although I think I'd prefer to just explode and go out with a bang. With my luck I'll die a slow death not able to get out of my chair.
____________________________
Hunter Avril
Rogue Ultra
Paladin Awhellnah
Mage Shantotto
Shaman Lakshmi
Faith (Valefor)

#39 Jul 14 2010 at 11:05 PM Rating: Decent
Thief's Knife
*****
15,053 posts
Mikhalia wrote:


The only use for high performance machines that need i7 processors, or would find themselves eventually wanting a multiprocessor, are:

- Gamers
- Video/Graphic designers
- Programmers
- Servers

For the level that technology is currently at, I can't see the "average home user" (you know, the "I just check my e-book and my facemail" type) ever NEEDING more than a dual core processor, and even THAT is pushing it; a 1.5 GHz single core processor should be more than enough for this type of user. Even the current el cheapo boxes that run ~300ish with a Sempron/Celeron, 2 GB RAM, and a 300-500 GB HD are more than sufficient for YEARS to come. 95% of the "Internet and email" users are extremely unlikely to ever get their hard drives to 15-20% capacity, unless they suddenly start storing an -assload- of photos and music on them.



The Next 25 Years of Video Games
____________________________
Final Fantasy XI 12-14-11 Update wrote:
Adjust the resolution of menus.
The main screen resolution for "FINAL FANTASY XI" is dependent on the "Overlay Graphics Resolution" setting.
If the Overlay Graphics Resolution is set higher than the Menu Resolution, menus will be automatically resized.


I thought of it first:

http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=10&mid=130073657654872218#20
#40 Jul 14 2010 at 11:24 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
2,801 posts
Windows 8 or PS4, take your pick... in about 3-4 years.
____________________________
WoW -- Zaia -- Dragonmaw -- Mage 80 BABY! Alchemy 450
Also... Hunter 62, Rogue 52, Warrior 66, Warlock 43, Death Knight 70, Shaman Who Cares? ;)

FFXI -- Caia -- Retired/Deleted -- Blm 75, Alchemy 97
Pandimonium server - Rank 10 - Bastok

Zaela Rdm -- 35, Alchemy 45 -- Forced into retirement because I didn't have the right kind of credit card. Hope it was worth 18 bucks a month, SE.

#41 Jul 15 2010 at 4:09 AM Rating: Decent
31 posts
I currently have Vista 64bit. Not really that much of a computer tech, and whether or not FFXIV runs better, equally, or lower on Vista compared to Windows 7 is yet to be seen (i think, if anyone knows any differnt please inform me).

But I'm pretty sure in the next month or 2 I'm going to upgrade to 7, everyone who I know personally who has done so from Vista says its a big improvement. Not hard I know due to the universal agreement that Vista is pants
#42 Jul 15 2010 at 6:29 AM Rating: Default
**
782 posts
Quote:
At the risk of sounding like an ignorant ******.


Look into what is possible with HTML5/Canvas.

People are making 3d games in html/css/java. This takes some power. Then there are sites that your average home user does use, like gmail for instance. The amount of JS alone can make the pages take several seconds to render fully on a slow box lacking ram. Multiply that by the number of times someone loads their email and were talking a lot of wasted time JUST using a web browser to do something "simple" like check email.

There is a page made in all js/css that demonstrates the movements of the objects in the solar system. It has each planet "simply" revolving around the sun. It brings most machines to their knees.

These are two typical sites that most users might find themselves at one day that without proper speeds will find themselves wasting time. (The 3d games admittedly aren't for everyone.)

Edited, Jul 15th 2010 7:31am by windexy
#43 Jul 15 2010 at 6:31 AM Rating: Decent
**
423 posts
Quote:
I currently have Vista 64bit. Not really that much of a computer tech, and whether or not FFXIV runs better, equally, or lower on Vista compared to Windows 7 is yet to be seen (i think, if anyone knows any differnt please inform me).

But I'm pretty sure in the next month or 2 I'm going to upgrade to 7, everyone who I know personally who has done so from Vista says its a big improvement. Not hard I know due to the universal agreement that Vista is pants


7 is basically a service pack 3 for Windows Vista. As for gaming i have no idea but overall the system runs a lot better. I know there wre huge issues with UAC, memory usage on certain things in the OS and a lot of other things in vista. Bootups and shutdowns are significantly faster in 7... in my opinion rivaling XP.

I have not used Vista enough to comment fully but i hardly noticed a major difference between 7 and XP, and XP i've been using for 6 or 7 years.

Plus not to mention you can get a cheap OEM copy for like... $100ish.

Edited, Jul 15th 2010 6:31am by boriss
#44 Jul 15 2010 at 11:35 AM Rating: Good
*****
11,539 posts
Lobivopis wrote:
Mikhalia wrote:


The only use for high performance machines that need i7 processors, or would find themselves eventually wanting a multiprocessor, are:

- Gamers
- Video/Graphic designers
- Programmers
- Servers

For the level that technology is currently at, I can't see the "average home user" (you know, the "I just check my e-book and my facemail" type) ever NEEDING more than a dual core processor, and even THAT is pushing it; a 1.5 GHz single core processor should be more than enough for this type of user. Even the current el cheapo boxes that run ~300ish with a Sempron/Celeron, 2 GB RAM, and a 300-500 GB HD are more than sufficient for YEARS to come. 95% of the "Internet and email" users are extremely unlikely to ever get their hard drives to 15-20% capacity, unless they suddenly start storing an -assload- of photos and music on them.



The Next 25 Years of Video Games


Dammit, you just killed the next several hours of my day. Might as well have posted a link to tvtropes.

At any rate, I did say "for the level that technology is currently at". Obviously in 5, 10, 25 years that will have evolved to a new level, where I might find my kids saying "psh, why would you buy a computer that didn't have a 32-core processor, a 256-bit OS, 64 GB RAM, and a 50 TB HD; you need that **** just to get online!"

But for the level technology is -currently- at, the lowest end of the bell curve in terms of retail products will satisfy the needs of the typical home user, and the highest end of the bell curve is needed for people who require more power for gaming/design/etc. The market for people who need more than a $400 system can give them, but don't need what a $1200 system can give them, is very small. That doesn't stop box stores from selling them though; if you tell someone who is not very knowledgeable who is planning to spend 400-500 on a computer, it's not too terribly difficult to use vague terms like "faster" and "better" to upsell them to a $700-800 computer. My parents' next door neighbors are your typical "facebook, email, and google" users and Best Buy sold them an $1100 computer because the sales monkey had convinced them that they NEEDED it.

It's the "super size" concept; convince someone to pay a little bit more for an upgrade they don't need. If you convince enough people to do this, you increase your profit margin substantially. Good for businesses, bad for consumers who end up overpaying for a product they won't fully utilize.

It would be folly to say that technology won't or can't evolve and eventually the "I just use the internet" bar will be raised, but for the time being, many users are paying way more than they need to to overshoot that bar.
____________________________
[ffxisig]55836[/ffxisig]

Mikhalia: and FWIW, my posts are 95% helpful, informative, or funny.
Mikhalia: only 5% or less of my posts are utter crap.
Tyapex: 393 posts of utter crap...
Mikhalia: Sounds about right.
This forum is read only
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 19 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (19)