My Issues with Windows 7

Page 5 of 15 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

  1. Posts : 136
    Windows 7 Ultimate x64
    Thread Starter
       #41

    Sure you can expand your memory. But RAM isnt free nor do you have infinite dimm slots availible.

    More effort into efficiency would make our hardware go that much further.

    Hardware is cheap relatively. It is far from free.

    Directx 10, 11 and security drawbacks are only lacking due to Microsoft wanting to strong arm people into their new OS'es.

    And ugly UI is only in your opinion as I disagree. Esspecially with XP in classic mode. What good is pretty if it impedes on work done or play?

    I want my OS to use as few resources as possible and to be as efficient as it mose possibly can to give things I want to do more resources even with the best of the best hardware (more is still better... right?)

    EDIT: Just to clarify I am not stating that Windows 7 should have the same requirements as XP. Just not as high as it is and to be more dynamic. I wouldn't dare install windows 7 on a netbook for example and those are extremely popular right now.
      My Computer


  2. Posts : 2,685
    Windows 7 Ultimate x86-64
       #42

    BunBun said:
    Sure you can expand your memory. But RAM isnt free nor do you have infinite dimm slots availible.

    More effort into efficiency would make our hardware go that much further.

    Hardware is cheap relatively. It is far from free.

    Directx 10, 11 and security drawbacks are only lacking due to Microsoft wanting to strong arm people into their new OS'es.

    And ugly UI is only in your opinion as I disagree. Esspecially with XP in classic mode. What good is pretty if it impedes on work done or play?

    I want my OS to use as few resources as possible and to be as efficient as it mose possibly can to give things I want to do more resources even with the best of the best hardware (more is still better... right?)
    Resources are meant to be used and 16GB of RAM would last a while. Because of XP, I bet developers are still supporting DirectX 9.0c. Kill that and make gaming pointless on XP and there will be a shift.
      My Computer


  3. Posts : 136
    Windows 7 Ultimate x64
    Thread Starter
       #43

    Frostmourne said:
    Resources are meant to be used and 16GB of RAM would last a while. Because of XP, I bet developers are still supporting DirectX 9.0c. Kill that and make gaming pointless on XP and there will be a shift.
    There are plenty of reasons developers still use directx 9 or any older API in any setting. Bleeding edge or the latest and greatest is not always a great idea to adopt. Directx9 is known and developers know they can make a game that runs good with it. What is so wrong with that?
      My Computer


  4. Posts : 2,685
    Windows 7 Ultimate x86-64
       #44

    BunBun said:
    Frostmourne said:
    Resources are meant to be used and 16GB of RAM would last a while. Because of XP, I bet developers are still supporting DirectX 9.0c. Kill that and make gaming pointless on XP and there will be a shift.
    There are plenty of reasons developers still use directx 9 or any older API in any setting. Bleeding edge or the latest and greatest is not always a great idea to adopt. Directx9 is known and developers know they can make a game that runs good with it. What is so wrong with that?
    It doesn't look as good as 10 or make good use of my 4890's 800 shader's. However, Bioshock 2 is looking great - support for x64, recommends (needs) 3GB of RAM and naturally supports 7/DirectX 10.
      My Computer


  5. Posts : 136
    Windows 7 Ultimate x64
    Thread Starter
       #45

    The differences between Directx 9 and 10 are not earthshatter. And I am more interesting in the new routines they develope that do things more efficiently rather then make it prettier. There is a point where pretty is nice but there is a balance between pushing the limits of hardware and making things run nice. I buy hardware to have overhead (example I need to have enough ram to allow me not to use a pagefile) and with developers constantly pushing the limits of hardware it makes it difficult.

    That said I am excited to see games take advantage of multi cores and x64 instructions.
      My Computer


  6. Posts : 324
    Windows 7 and MAC
       #46

    Don't run anything which is system related from a removable media...... your whole processor will become a junk one day
      My Computer


  7. Posts : 2,685
    Windows 7 Ultimate x86-64
       #47

    BunBun said:
    The differences between Directx 9 and 10 are not earthshatter. And I am more interesting in the new routines they develope that do things more efficiently rather then make it prettier. There is a point where pretty is nice but there is a balance between pushing the limits of hardware and making things run nice. I buy hardware to have overhead (example I need to have enough ram to allow me not to use a pagefile) and with developers constantly pushing the limits of hardware it makes it difficult.

    That said I am excited to see games take advantage of multi cores and x64 instructions.
    10 has unified shaders instead of separate routines for pixel and vertex shaders, which is why Direct X 10 cards have a whole set of shaders. So 10 does run better and look nicer. Hardware is designed to become obsolete. I'd pay more for new tech to run the latest games if necessary, no hesitation.

    Look here:

    DirectX - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
      My Computer


  8. Posts : 31,242
    Windows 11 Pro x64 [Latest Release and Release Preview]
       #48

    First - This is not aimed at any particular member

    But can we please keep this thread as a discussion

    Forum Rule 1
    While debating and discussion is fine, we will not tolerate rudeness, insulting posts, personal attacks or purposeless inflammatory posts. Our decision is final in these matters.
    Thank you :)
      My Computers


  9. Posts : 136
    Windows 7 Ultimate x64
    Thread Starter
       #49

    Stevy22 said:
    Don't run anything which is system related from a removable media...... your whole processor will become a junk one day
    Who said anything about running system related stuff from removable media?

    And what are you trying to say in the last part of your post... makes no sense...

    Frostmourne said:
    BunBun said:
    The differences between Directx 9 and 10 are not earthshatter. And I am more interesting in the new routines they develope that do things more efficiently rather then make it prettier. There is a point where pretty is nice but there is a balance between pushing the limits of hardware and making things run nice. I buy hardware to have overhead (example I need to have enough ram to allow me not to use a pagefile) and with developers constantly pushing the limits of hardware it makes it difficult.

    That said I am excited to see games take advantage of multi cores and x64 instructions.
    10 has unified shaders instead of separate routines for pixel and vertex shaders, which is why Direct X 10 cards have a whole set of shaders. So 10 does run better and look nicer. Hardware is designed to become obsolete. I'd pay more for new tech to run the latest games if necessary, no hesitation.

    Look here:

    DirectX - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    No need to tell me about DirectX. Fact is its better known how to optimize 9 by developers then it is 10. Plus there a whole lot of other stuffed involved that I am not getting into in this thread as it is far away from the topic.
      My Computer


  10. Posts : 209
    Windows 7 build 7100 x86
       #50

    BunBun said:
    Just to clarify I am not stating that Windows 7 should have the same requirements as XP. Just not as high as it is and to be more dynamic. I wouldn't dare install windows 7 on a netbook for example and those are extremely popular right now.

    Windows 7 works great on netbooks. seriously. Windows 7 has the ability to adapt to whatever situation you put it in, unlike Vista. If you put it in a low ram situation, it will adapt and precache less. If it has a slower processor speed, it will adapt its indexing to suit.
    I have no idea why all the manufacturers are putting Starter Edition on all the netbooks, Home Premium runs perfectly!
      My Computer


 
Page 5 of 15 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

  Related Discussions
Our Sites
Site Links
About Us
Windows 7 Forums is an independent web site and has not been authorized, sponsored, or otherwise approved by Microsoft Corporation. "Windows 7" and related materials are trademarks of Microsoft Corp.

© Designer Media Ltd
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:43.
Find Us