I thought the subject of the topic was to upgrade LFS graphics engine and not your computers, sorry wrong thread.
* [OPC] DK leaves
* [OPC] DK leaves
They are relevant as people don't want LFS to have nicer graphics it won't run any good on computers from the stone-age. Read the thread next time.
But people are comparing their computers and what compatibility has each OS. I read the thread and thats why im posting this one. I think you should read it better and understand what im saying.
Bose is right.
Plus, as the original idea was already suggested many times it doesn't matter that much if we go "a bit" off-topic, is it?
Plus, as the original idea was already suggested many times it doesn't matter that much if we go "a bit" off-topic, is it?
MadCatX, SB Live's DAC SNR ratio is lower than one found in modern Realtek and VIA chips.
I don't want to be a computer geek - whatever that really means. I just want to know what software and hardware will work on my machine and MS is definitely not making this easy for me. I really don't want to live in fear which apps are going to break after next update. Sadly, a lot of these problems go on account of buggy WinAPI...
The onboard soundchip in the machine where I had this problem was definitely inferior to the SB Live. I ended up buying a new card just to run W7...
Reminds me of the famous story about the Windows team adding hooks to the Windows kernel to make sure Sim City still ran.
I actually think the Windows team deserve more credit than they get for stuff like this.
I remember it too and to be honest, adding hacks to allow a buggy application to run is also a no-no. If you want to run DOS apps, use an emulator or DosBOX like apps. I agree it's kinda hard to have an opinion on this. MS is known to have bugs in their own API's which forced programmers to create workarounds for it. When MS fixed these bugs, such apps usually stopped working. On the other hand the amount of work they put to keep compatibility to at least some extend is admirable. Nevertheless, there are always apps that just break and then it's all down to costs of upgrading to a newer version of such apps. I can't imagine a developer team paying for a multilicense for both Win7 and MSVS 2008 just because MSVS 2005 doesn't work under Vista+.
Yeah, but you only notice the lack of compatibility for the programs that stop working. There are hundredths, if not thousandths, of old programs that MS hacked on their own kernel to support, and you don't realise that they've done it because those programs just work. As Spolsky says in the essay above, it's a question of philosophy. A long time ago MS took the decision that your old programs shouldn't stop working just because you upgrade your OS. Now, turns out that they cannot check every program ever made because that's impossible, some programs will still fail, but I still think that it's the right approach to have taken. Frankly I'd rather have some backwards-compatibility rather than none at all. I don't think that the alternatives (complete compatibility vs none) are feasible or, in the later case, desirable.
Edit: Incidentally Bioshock doesn't work on Windows 7 with Realtec HD audio. I may have just undermined my own argument. Bioshock isn't even a legacy app, it's DX10 for god's sake!
True Windows is not ideal but it's not that bad tbh, most issues that pop up are user issues in terms of day to day, not saying you're incompetent. For example I had to use a Windows 7 Driver on my Wireless card (I'm running XP) because it didn't work.
I think 7 is faster than XP and should stay faster for longer as well as it's not as stupid in terms of clogging up the registry. But what stops me from using it at home is the fact everything is so bloody hard to find...I'm a "windows certified professional" whatever that means (guess it means I can use mr sheen on a bit of glass) and even so to find the equivalent option in Windows 7 takes at least twice as long as it does on XP.
Also Server 2008 doesn't have telnet, what the **** where Microsoft thinking.
But in terms of software/hardware I've not come across a piece yet that won't work on MS XP. But I'm probably going to get prooved wrong pretty soon.
Um... you do know that whole clogged up registry thing is a myth. I know a lot of people find this hard to believe, but it's true. Any program that pretends it can speed up your computer by cleaning out the registry is a scam.
But yes, Windows 7 is much more efficient. I've installed 7 on all my machines, and all of them run faster. Even the really sucky ones.
The Vista failure was a real kick in the ass for MS so they made a few impressive improvements to the kernel regarding memory paging and stuff IIRC. W7 is most likely better that XP when it comes to things under the hood, but it also bears those few design flaws like the centralized registry and sort of clumsy user management where every third app requries admin rights to run.
BTW, DarkTimes is right about registry clogging. Since it's stored like 2 huge files on the HDD, it suffers badly from fragmentation and NTFS isn't exactly good at getting not fragmented. No matter what tools you use, you cannot get it much better.
BTW, DarkTimes is right about registry clogging. Since it's stored like 2 huge files on the HDD, it suffers badly from fragmentation and NTFS isn't exactly good at getting not fragmented. No matter what tools you use, you cannot get it much better.
Well, I discussed my feelings on UAC earlier on in the year in a very badly received and misunderstood thread regarding LFS+UAC (turns out most Windows users don't understand how Windows works). Fact is any issue people may have with UAC is the result of badly written programs, and not with any flaws in Windows itself. Sadly there are a lot of programs that don't understand how to play nice with Windows security and it's doubly-sadly that LFS is one of them. This is the complete failure of the programmers who write those programs. Anyway there is a very, very good argument to be made that UAC is the single best feature Microsoft have ever introduced to Windows.
It means that, like all users, your better at a bad practice you know well than a better one you have no experience with.
95% of Windows 7's UI improvements *do* make things faster & easier to do, and are more logical as well. Any delay you find it just because of you getting used to it.
I freely admit the UI of OSX is probably better, but it takes me (no joke) 60 seconds to find the complete apps list just because I use it so infrequently.
I'm not flaming you, Don't get me wrong, But you all really have to move on. I had to bend over (yeah yeah..) For a 1500+ computer, But you all will soon, If you're rocking old hardware you will be left behind, I even had to take the "Jesus xp was so much faster" Now i use windows 7 as my main gaming computer
I'm using Windows 7 64 bit home premium build 7600. No problems, I don't know if I was completely blessed by a flawless gaming computer, or i just picked the right hardware, Sooner or later Xp is going to die out like 2000 and we can't stop it. It's 12 years old I believe, Would you keep the same tires on your car for 12 years? No. They'd be completely warn out.
Don't get me wrong Madcat, This isn't directly flaming you, But how do you expect almost 15 year old hardware to work on brand new hardware? It's not really possible. Backwards compatibility can only go back SO far. Just my 2 cents.
-justasimfan-
I can't even be bothered to hear justasim's fan jive anymore, it won't happen (3040 A.D.) And for now, Just enjoy the god damned barrier update, And if that doesn't work, Download ENB series, If that doesn't work, Stick some jumper cables on your nipples and juice your ass, See some HDR then. - rage.
I love so much the way you flame others, make's me horny
that's because they moved everything worthwhile to "user profiles" and those can grow to multiple gigabytes for each user that ever logged into the pc.
i've had this windows pc for a couple years now and it's already at 2gb. imagine what an always-logged-in, heavy-use user's profile would accumulate.
LFS is not one of them, as it (by default) installs itself to C:\LFS, a folder to which everyone from Users group has write access.
LFS installs outside Program Files folder because IT IS one f those progrmas.
Avoiding a problem doesn't fix it hehe
This ^^
Nope it's not.
Actually, people who complain about UAC borking old games, should create C:\Games (or X:\Games where X is fastest of non-system HDDs in case of SSD for C
with write permission for Everyone.Like this:
there we go, i fixed that for you. just because you have a problem saving money to buy the things you like, it doesn't make everyone else are spoiled rich kids. in fact, that statement alone actually makes you look like a spoiled poor kid. set yourself a target and reach it. is it really that difficult to save a few dolla for new things?
i'm happy with LFS' current graphics. it's not over done to an extent where it's like looking at a cartoon. and it's not under done to an extent where you think you're diving a shoe box. they should keep it's current look but expand on it. like removable parts (damage) better smoke. and maybe some reflective surfaces.
It's like this. Would you rather have the best sex of your life with a ugly hooker. Or sub-par with a fine ass piece of meat.
or let the hooker nail the sub-par while you whip up a fresh batch of population paste.
Yes it is if you can't find any job in this crappy country,where I live,but let's not discuss Latvia's nationwide unemployement problems here,where anyone won't give a $#!t about it anyway...
Will the graphics render engine get updated ?
(92 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG