When did I mention thumbnails? Seems like your reading and comprehension issues are rearing their head again
Please stop insulting other members or your little fun time here will be over.
My opinions on Vista SP1, 8 months later..
- Thread starter OzZie
- Start date
Please stop insulting other members or your little fun time here will be over.
light duties - sitting on the desktop with explorer open and a few tabs of IE sure 2gb is ok
for ppl who like to use their machines with top performance 4gb is the sweet spot ...end of
2gb is fine for vista for gaming. That is the point. I'm not bloody well saying 4gb isn't optimal.
If you think 2gb will just "allow you to carry out light duties" then you are seriously incorrect.
It's just like in XP - 1gb is fine, that will allow you to have a great experience and just carry out light duties.
But again 2gb is optimal...
...............
When did I mention thumbnails? Seems like your reading and comprehension issues are rearing their head again
I said zoom. XP picture viewer employs a high quality zoom algorithm. Vista picture viewer simply zooms in with no algorithm. This manifests itself not only when you use the 'zoom' function, but also when you view an image which is larger than your screen can fit. The resizing is of low quality in Vista. This isn't my uneducated opinion, this is easily verifiable fact.
Can you not read? I'd check my post again
Are you threatening to ban me?
Why did you not delete the posts calling me an idiot before, or is that different.
Yes I did and I just gave you another explanation.
Why haven't I ever heard anyone complain of their programs flickering or artifacting?
This "Solitaire" effect when your PC gets bogged down is a known problem with the GDI rendering design. Pretty much every Windows user has seen it at some point. It's been there in Windows since forever but it was never fixed, not even in XP, because it was such a fundamental design flaw and the only way to fix it was to introduce the desktop compositor and deprecate GDI in Vista.
It's unfair to single out DD here... he was insulted with a personal attack earlier in the thread and you said nothing.
Anyway i'm going to re-install Vista and have a real good play with it again... see how it is now that SP1 has been released.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Why don't we stick to the discussion at hand rather then destroying an otherwise decent thread?
Burnsy
Burnsy
Yes I understand that much, but supposing you start a machine from a cold start. Clearly Vista cannot possibly get any program into RAM quicker than XP because it is dependent upon the performance of the storage device, usually a HDD.
Dirtydog, leave them on there crusade.
Remove the picture mate this isn't a GD thread...
light duties - sitting on the desktop with explorer open and a few tabs of IE sure 2gb is ok
for ppl who like to use their machines with top performance 4gb is the sweet spot ...end of
2gb is fine for vista for gaming. That is the point. I'm not bloody well saying 4gb isn't optimal.
If you think 2gb will just "allow you to carry out light duties" then you are seriously incorrect.
It's just like in XP - 1gb is fine, that will allow you to have a great experience and just carry out light duties.
But again 2gb is optimal...
...............
Can you not read? I'd check my post again
why do you keep harping on about light duties, who cares?
i don't build a q6600 to 3.8ghz and have it sit on the desktop
idling away.if i was talking about minimum required i could have said 512mb, but i stated the OS sweet spot which IS 4gb. gaming with 2gb in Vista is like 1gb under XP ...not enjoyable.
you're clearly trying to pick an argument for no reason at all.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
The slowest part would be the user intervention though. Vista will have preloaded it before a user initiates a program call.
Burnsy
Feels like it...when I explained my experiences with Vista I've been called a liar or not done the updates, or something wrong with my PC.
Vista is quicker off the block then XP & i can start doing stuff as soon as i see the desktop.
Hmm, dunno about you but I can double click on an icon pretty quickly
Photoshop takes some time to load. The only way Vista can 'appear' to load it quicker is if it prefetches it before the desktop comes up, which would in effect be smoke and mirrors.Feels like what?
Because Vista prefetches before the desktop comes up, presumably.
Icons have always been like that. .ICO is just a container for the same icon but in lots of different sizes. In Vista they basically added loads of "big" versions of the icons to each .ICO. So that when you scale the view they get bigger and actually look even better and more detailed.