PDA

View Full Version : OT Celeon's Vista troubles



Celeon999
07-06-2008, 01:07 PM
So i decided to install Windows Vista in a dual boot configuration. So far so good.

Did you know that you can install a fully bootable Vista on every hard drive partition ? Not just on primaries but also on the logical drives ?


Anyway, here is my problem :

Ive installed the latest Nvidia drives. Everything worked as it should , followed by the obligatory system reboot.

After reboot , windows started in 1024x768 or 1280x1024 resolution (not sure) ive logged in and waited until vista finished its usual background loading of stuff you never learn what its good for.

Just as i grab my mouse in order to go to the system properties to check the display settings, my monitor goes into sleep mode and stays in it. No key pushing or mouse moving made it come back.

Ive rebooted just to find out that my monitor now goes into sleep mode as soom as vista starts. I cant even see the login screen anymore.

Ive repeated this several times and it stays as it is.

So i used the safe mode to deinstall the drivers. When they were gone my monitor worked again in a normal vista boot.

Reinstalled the drivers to try everything a second time with the result that it happened again.

This time my monitor went into sleep mode right at first try , not after 2 minutes like at first attempt recreating the situation i had before.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Should i try to install monitor drivers first ? Could that be the solution ?

I really wonder what Vista's problem is here.

Celeon999
07-06-2008, 01:07 PM
So i decided to install Windows Vista in a dual boot configuration. So far so good.

Did you know that you can install a fully bootable Vista on every hard drive partition ? Not just on primaries but also on the logical drives ?


Anyway, here is my problem :

Ive installed the latest Nvidia drives. Everything worked as it should , followed by the obligatory system reboot.

After reboot , windows started in 1024x768 or 1280x1024 resolution (not sure) ive logged in and waited until vista finished its usual background loading of stuff you never learn what its good for.

Just as i grab my mouse in order to go to the system properties to check the display settings, my monitor goes into sleep mode and stays in it. No key pushing or mouse moving made it come back.

Ive rebooted just to find out that my monitor now goes into sleep mode as soom as vista starts. I cant even see the login screen anymore.

Ive repeated this several times and it stays as it is.

So i used the safe mode to deinstall the drivers. When they were gone my monitor worked again in a normal vista boot.

Reinstalled the drivers to try everything a second time with the result that it happened again.

This time my monitor went into sleep mode right at first try , not after 2 minutes like at first attempt recreating the situation i had before.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Should i try to install monitor drivers first ? Could that be the solution ?

I really wonder what Vista's problem is here.

Celeon999
07-06-2008, 02:11 PM
Ok little update here :

Ive installed the monitor drivers and reinstalled the nvidia drivers afterwards.

I got past the login screen and after about 20 seconds i got a window telling me :

........"Chelter or maybe Chelper or something" application has stopped working, Windows Vista is looking for a solution to the solve the problem.......

just for a second before my monitor went into energy conservation mode.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

So far im hating Vista.


Faster, easier to use, even a faster and easier installation ....yeah right.

The installation took exactly as long as it would to install Windows XP and i cant even get a simple thing like a graphics driver to work properly. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

With XP i never had such a weird problem right after install.


If people tell you Vista is total rubbish...

You should better believe them because i can assure you they are right http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Kielhauler1961
07-06-2008, 02:49 PM
Celeon,

Bill Gates stepped down from running Microsoft on Friday. Does he know something you don't?

Re-install XP and be a happy bunny again. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Messervy
07-06-2008, 03:10 PM
I bought a copy of Vista premium last year and it still waits better days. Vista SP3 I guess.

bunkerratt
07-06-2008, 09:25 PM
drop your pant's...bend over...and say thank you sir may i have another...3 times.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

Celeon999
07-07-2008, 01:16 AM
Ok i must admit that Windows XP didn't worked that well back then when it was released either.

But at least you could read the error messages on a functioning monitor http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif


Through some google research ive found out that im not the only one having exactly the same problem.

A lot of people have it and most of them but strangely NOT ALL of them have Samsung CRTs.

Only one it seems has found a solution by accident.

I will try to install all drivers including the service pack with the graphics driver being the last thing.

He said that it worked for him although he doesnt know if it was the service pack or any of the updates Vista installs automatically without telling what they are good for. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


I hate you Bill. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Oh yeah, did i mention that it is the "Ultimate" edition ?

Ultimate rubbish http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Mittelwaechter
07-07-2008, 03:35 AM
Hi Cel,

are you sure your Samsung monitor is supported by Vista?

From their FAQs: Statement on Vista (http://www.samsungpc.com/top_faq/69_faqanswer_samsung_vista.html)

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Have you tried to run your setup without special drivers for the monitor?
Doesn't Nvidia Control Panel offer all the stuff you may want to tweak?

Celeon999
07-07-2008, 04:05 AM
Well my monitor is a Syncmaster 997MB and is propably not Vista certified.


Yes ive tried to run Vista with and without the Monitor drivers with the same result. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif


I would like to check the nvidia control panel but as i said, im blind as soon as i start Vista with installed gforce drivers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Sometimes i can get past the login screen, sometimes the monitor goes into standby right after the Vista loading bar dissappears.

With the standard VGA driver of Vista i have no problems at all.

I also installed service pack 1 and the nforce chipset driver for my mobo now. Then tried the geforce drivers again and click ! ... the same effect.

The only thing i can do is to start vista in safe mode and deinstall the graphics drivers again. Did that several times now after fruitless attempts.

Ive found about a dozen people on several tech forums who seem to have this problem too but nobody could help them so far.

One of them even has the problem with a flatscreen instead of a CRT.

But they all seem to have different Nvidia cards ! Maybe the Geforce Vista drivers are faulty ? Dont know. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Vista is useless without a working graphics driver setup.

klcarroll
07-07-2008, 07:16 AM
@Celeon;

Try sending a PM to "andy3536".

He is a Vista user, ....and has, in the past, expressed his enthusiastic satisfaction with it.
(I believe that he is some sort of I.T. person.)

klcarroll

Messervy
07-07-2008, 08:06 AM
The only way one can express an "enthusiastic satisfaction" with Vista, is by being a mouse clicking happy, moderately masochistic, upgrading from Windows 3.1, computer user without a clear vision what you actually want the OS to do. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

P.S.
This is a rant (not to be taken personaly please)

Realjambo
07-07-2008, 08:15 AM
I wonder what a 'Which OS do you use' poll would reveal.

Celeon, I hope you get your issues resolved http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

tambor198
07-07-2008, 09:28 AM
Celeon, what Nvidia graphics card are you presently using along with which drivers?


One suggestion, have you tried contacting Samsung about your problem?

Celeon999
07-07-2008, 09:58 AM
I have a XFX 8800 GTS320 and downloaded the Geforce 175.19 driver package for Windows Vista 32bit.


Nope havent contacted Samsung yet as i doubt that the monitor itself is the source of the problem.

Im pretty sure it is software problem in Vista or the drivers themselves.

Ive also read stories that some people have problems setting a other refresh rate than 60hz for their Syncmaster monitors under Windows Vista.

It looks to me that the monitor runs at the usual 85hz before it goes into standby.

Maybe vista is forcing a even higher refresh rate on it which it cannot display and therefore it is switching itself of ?

I cannot check that theory as i cant get into the display settings fast enough before the screen turns off. Its frustrating http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

andy3536
07-07-2008, 11:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Celeon999:
I have a XFX 8800 GTS320 and downloaded the Geforce 175.19 driver package for Windows Vista 32bit.


Nope havent contacted Samsung yet as i doubt that the monitor itself is the source of the problem.

Im pretty sure it is software problem in Vista or the drivers themselves.

Ive also read stories that some people have problems setting a other refresh rate than 60hz for their Syncmaster monitors under Windows Vista.

It looks to me that the monitor runs at the usual 85hz before it goes into standby.

Maybe vista is forcing a even higher refresh rate on it which it cannot display and therefore it is switching itself of ?

I cannot check that theory as i cant get into the display settings fast enough before the screen turns off. Its frustrating http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


What a strange problem http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

You might be onto something with the refresh rate though, if it's an older monitor it might well be right. It's certainly not recognising the signal from the PC.

Have you tried any other drivers? Back catalouge here-
http://downloads.guru3d.com/Videocards---NVIDIA-GeForce-Vista-32%7C64_c32.html

You should also try sending a an emial to tech support with both microsoft and nvidia see what they have to say, if it is the monitor it might be somthing they've seen many times before and they might be a little quicker getting back.

Unfortunatly though you might end up requiring a monitor to get it to work. Do you have access to another display/TV with a vga/dvi socket?



@klcarroll, not really an I.T. person although i dable, self tought really so i could build myself a gaming PC http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Have biult PCs using both 32 and 64 bit versions of vista without issue, although both ATI and nvidia have in the past had many problems making graghics drivers for vista and DX10.

Celeon999
07-07-2008, 11:15 AM
Success ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


While Andy was posting the suggestion to use an older driver, i had the same idea and downloaded the old forceware 162.50 for vista 32 bit.

It works ! Im writing this from my now functioning Vista (Although i must admit that im using firefox 3.0 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif )

So this clearly shows that something is wrong with the new nvidia drivers.



EDIT : And now guess what !

Just out of curiosity, i used the automatic driver update feature the vista device manager offers to let windows search for graphic driver updates and install them.

It found the new 175.19 drivers and installed them. I did a reboot and .... it still works !

With the very same drivers that didn't work before when i installed them the old fashioned way.

Very very strange.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

andy3536
07-07-2008, 12:02 PM
How strange.....

Funny how the driver could be updated to but not installed fresh.

Glad it's all working now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Celeon999
07-07-2008, 12:06 PM
Installing Crysis now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif


Want to check those DX10 features http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/typing.gif

Kaleun1961
07-07-2008, 02:25 PM
I'm laptop shopping for my daughter this week. I'm hoping I can still get a new laptop with XP Pro on it. Still not convinced here that Vista is the way to go. My daughter's not very PC competent, even though she uses one extensively at university. Any tech issues end up being my problem to fix. I do not relish the thought of trying to have to do phone support for her on a new OS when she's back at school the end of the summer. I'd prefer a new laptop with XP Pro on it, but it's getting harder to buy a new system these days and escape the forced pimping of Vista.

My thinking is that the "next" Windows will be the "real" one and Vista will be remembered like Windows ME. I've never heard so many negative things about an OS as I have about Vista. With all that smoke in the air, I'm sure there must be a fire somewhere.

klcarroll
07-07-2008, 02:31 PM
@K61;

I'm in almost exactly the same boat! (If you'll pardon the forum related pun.)

I have to replace the laptop I use for ALL my important apps, and I am trying very hard NOT to make the jump to VISTA.

Please post and let us know what you decide to go with!

klcarroll

tambor198
07-07-2008, 04:12 PM
Hey, Celeon. Glad to hear you got things working. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


@klcarroll & K61. Just to let you guys know, my daughter just bought a new laptop for herself. we basically looked at three places, BestBuy, Circuit City and Office Depot. Every laptop in all three stores has Vista Home Premium installed on them. However, we did not inquire as to whether you could get one with XP on it or not. My daughter purchased a Dell laptop and though I'm really no expert when it comes to laptops the Inspirion 1525 (http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8880874&type=product&id=1210982227895) is really a nice one. The only thing my daughter doesn't like about the laptop is that it is not pink. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Celeon999
07-08-2008, 02:01 AM
What i found to be negative on Vista so far, is its relatively bad performance when playing Crysis.

Dont know why this is so or if i can tweak something to enhance its performance.


With exactly the same graphics settings, i have a significantly lower frame rate under Vista than under XP.

I also have more randomly disk access than under XP.

I have two gigabytes of RAM of which i thought would be enough for Vista.

Realjambo
07-08-2008, 02:27 AM
I haven't checked, but I wonder if there is a Vista patch or tweak or Crysis?

Celeon999
07-08-2008, 02:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Realjambo:
I haven't checked, but I wonder if there is a Vista patch or tweak or Crysis? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I was just googling for something like this and found some articles who approve of my findings.

According to the tests of several gaming and computer magazines, Crysis runs about 25 % slower under Vista than under Win XP (using the detail settings on the same computer with the same graphics drivers)

Strange thing is that the game programmers say that Vista offers much better usage of graphics drivers and memory handling than XP at the same time.


Ive also checked the "Very High" settings that enable all the DX10 features.

It looks absolutely stunning but with my current hardware it is impossible to play the game with these quality and details.


Ive found no explanation on why Crysis runs slower.

Maverick_U2007
07-08-2008, 04:30 AM
I am not an expert...by any stretch of the imagination!!!!

My honest belief about Vista is that it is RAM hungry....had a friend who bought an entry level laptop with 512mb of RAM and I think that Vista was using 511mb of it!!!.

Doubled the size of the RAM and now it is a laptop that runs much better.

When i bought vista I put in 4gb and it recognises about 3.3gb....have no problems with any of my games and run them 'maxed out'...(haven't got Crysis though)

Is is a RAM issue when playing Crysis???

Maverick

Celeon999
07-08-2008, 05:29 AM
Maverick is right !


I spoke to my brother who uses vista since about 6 months now and he told me that the only thing that makes Vista so slow is lack of RAM.


So what does lack of RAM mean in relation to Vista ?


Simply said : 2 Gigabytes of RAM is not enough for Vista to run properly !


It needs at least 3 GB.

When you use the task manager to monitor the RAM usage you can see that Vista uses up to 800 MB of RAM in IDLE MODE alone !

When you run a simple application like a installing a update for Vista it uses between 1.02 GB and 1.10 GB of your RAM alone for that.


I just installed a third GB of RAM from a friend and Vista boots almost twice as much as before, the heavy disk accessing has stopped and the performance gain in Crysis is immense too.


Dont know why this is so but the lack of performance in Crysis does not come from the RAM directly.

It is not the additonal hard drive access (cache file swapping etc.) which you usely encounter when you dont have enough of RAM that made Crysis so slow.

It feels more like the missing RAM is making Vista slowing down your graphics cards. And that very much !

This could be the answer on why so many people encounter bad performance of games under Vista. Because the vast majority has 2 GB of RAM which is the standard at the moment. (Just like me)


I have no frame rate infos at the momenz as i cant get fraps to work but from my feeling it runs as good as under XP but EXTREMELY better than under Vista with just 2 GB of RAM.

klcarroll
07-08-2008, 06:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">the heavy disk accessing has stopped and the performance gain in Crysis is immense too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have observed that with ANY version of Windows, the "heavy disk accessing" symptom is telling you that Windows is being forced to constantly run to the disk for "Virtual Memory". (Which, of course, is orders of magnitude slower than "real memory"!)

One of my wife's co-workers brought me a laptop that she said was taking over TEN MINUTES to boot. I looked at it, and she was running XP PRO, and only 256 Meg of ram. She also had the usual assortment of "start-up" programs that run in the background. The bottom line was that the machine needed disk based Virtual Memory to simply boot up!

I bumped the memory up to 1 Gig, and the machine booted in 90 seconds.

Memory: .......There's no such thing as "too much"!

klcarroll

Messervy
07-08-2008, 06:51 AM
I never quite understood why all Microsoft 32 bit OS's have this RAM issue.
I guess Vista under 64 bit system would truly come to life in all her advertised glory, but then again, a gamer's rig is anything but 64 bit system.

Anyway, it has been known from the very beginning that for gaming rig Vista is inferior to XP.

Maverick_U2007
07-08-2008, 07:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Messervy:
I never quite understood why all Microsoft 32 bit OS's have this RAM issue.
I guess Vista under 64 bit system would truly come to life in all her advertised glory, but then again, a gamer's rig is anything but 64 bit system.

Anyway, it has been known from the very beginning that for gaming rig Vista is inferior to XP. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have to disagree...politely of course.

I have gamed with both xp and more recently Vista. The xp machine had 2.5gb of ram, the Vista machine had 4gb (3.3 recognised), as far as low end games went there appears to be no significant difference.

I would NOT change my Vista system as I like it and it runs like a dream....it is like everything...if you have the proper hardware installed then it will run flawlessly...if not you are in for all kinds of problems.

Pointless buying a Bentley Car Body and filling it with parts from a Mini!!!

Maverick

Dinish
07-08-2008, 09:09 AM
It is definately true that Vista was released too early and there were real problems with it initially. MS seems to have solved a lot of them so I'll add my two cents worth and agree with Maverick. I dual boot XP and Vista 64 bit and have tried various games under both OS. Almost every game runs as well or better under Vista, excepting SH3. I also agree ram is very important. It is such a cheap upgrade these days and OS's are so ram hungry that 4 gb. should be considered basic.

andy3536
07-08-2008, 10:32 AM
DX10 features in crysis will lower the frame rate more than anything else. 2 gig of RAM is ok for the moment, if you run the crysis benchmark test it tells you haw much ram you use. Mine was using about 700 meg so with 1 meg used in the background there should be plenty left over.

It would also be worth noting that vista 32 uses alot less ram for background applications than vista 64. My vista 32 PC uses 400 meg less.

Celeon999
07-08-2008, 12:11 PM
I cannot speak about other games yet but Crysis definitely runs fastest on Windows XP.

This may be the fault of Crysis, that of the graphics drivers or Vista itself. Dont know.


The extra GB in Vista gives you a nice performance boost but even with that its still between 10 to 15 frames slower than on XP.

I will try Bioshock next.

Messervy
07-08-2008, 02:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Pointless buying a Bentley Car Body and filling it with parts from a Mini!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

One year ago I tried Vista on my rig:

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700 2.66 GHz, 4GB Corsair Dominator 8500 (1066), 2 x Ati Radeon 2900 X-fired, 2 x WD 10.000 RPM Raptors.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

...uninstalled it and installed XP!

But then again one year is a long time.

Kaleun1961
07-08-2008, 03:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Maverick_U2007:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Messervy:
I never quite understood why all Microsoft 32 bit OS's have this RAM issue.
I guess Vista under 64 bit system would truly come to life in all her advertised glory, but then again, a gamer's rig is anything but 64 bit system.

Anyway, it has been known from the very beginning that for gaming rig Vista is inferior to XP. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have to disagree...politely of course.

I have gamed with both xp and more recently Vista. The xp machine had 2.5gb of ram, the Vista machine had 4gb (3.3 recognised), as far as low end games went there appears to be no significant difference.

I would NOT change my Vista system as I like it and it runs like a dream....it is like everything...if you have the proper hardware installed then it will run flawlessly...if not you are in for all kinds of problems.

Pointless buying a Bentley Car Body and filling it with parts from a Mini!!!

Maverick </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But that's not really an "apples to apples" comparison. You're comparing two differently configured systems and getting the same results. Looking at it that way, you seem to be conceding that the Vista machine, with more resources runs about the same as a less powerful machine running XP. Which seems to me to be the nub of the issue: Vista requires more hardware in order to run comparably to XP. Or as Vista's critics say, it is a resource hog and all we get out of our more powerful hardware is the same performance [or less!] as the previous OS. To me it seems about the same as buying a bigger car with a bigger engine, but it performs the same as a lighter car with a smaller engine.

Anyway, in the end it is all about satisfaction, and if you are happy with your Vista setup, then more power to you! I'm going to stick with XP until it is no longer available and I hope by then the next Windows is available.

klcarroll
07-08-2008, 04:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">To me it seems about the same as buying a bigger car with a bigger engine, but it performs the same as a lighter car with a smaller engine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

@K61;

I believe that you have hit the proverbial "nail" on the "head"!!!

klcarroll

Celeon999
07-09-2008, 01:55 AM
I would say that Vista is something for the user who has the necessary powerful hardware and is looking for the extra eyecandy DX10 offers to you.

The first games that will make full usage of DX10 are yet to come but games like Crysis already give a small glimpse on what the DX10 future will offer us.


So far a dual boot system with XP and Vista seems to be the best option.

It will save you from a lot of trouble in case Vista doesnt give you the performance with a game you would really like to play decently or does not run it at all.

Vista is ready for a standalone usage if you work with your PC or run your favourite applications but if you are looking for a gaming rig...

Keep your faithful companion XP on your harddrive while you watch the progressing work on Vista.


Beside the unpleasant hardware hunger and rather moderate gaming capability, Vista itself has many nice improvements over XP.

It runs your applications faster and seems to be more stable than XP too. The driver update system is also very nice.

For instance ,no more searching downloading and installing a new graphics driver.

Just go to your device manager and tell Vista to look for updates on your nvidia drivers and Vista does everything for you.

All the new fancy new gadget and performance eating visual stuff is optional and you can easily get rid of it within 5 minutes making Vista look like XP again.

I also had less drivers to install after installing Vista.

More of my hardware worked right after the first reboot as Vista recognized the hardware, had the drivers ready right away or searched for them on the internet by itself, downloaded and installed them without leaving all the work to me.

This makes a complete system reinstall if it should become necessary less painful and a much shorter task than before.


So beside the obvious flaws, there are also pleasant improvements over XP visible.

Realjambo
07-09-2008, 02:24 AM
A good review there Celeon!

I cheat. I use Vista Inspirat - a brilliant Vista skin for XP. Visitors to the Control Room here at Jambo Towers remark, "Oh! When did you get Vista? I thought you weren't changing over?" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Celeon999
07-09-2008, 02:45 PM
Here is my Bioshock Vista report :


- Runs like a charm http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
- No lack of performance http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
- The water , wet surfaces and the shadows look a bit better than in DX9


The game is great anyway http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

blue_76
07-10-2008, 11:16 PM
Windows Vista is a big bloated OS compared to Windows XP. I got Windows Vista Home Premium edition a year ago and installed it on my system (Core2duo, 1gb ram, 2 sata 320gb drives and a Nvidia 7600GT). I was hoping to get a better performance with SH3 and a better Media performance as well (such as video encoding). Normally, I updated the drivers as soon as I installed Vista and soon after ran SH3 hoping to see a slight improvement. Instead what i got was a dismal frame rate. To make matters worse, the system slowed to a crawl after about a months use.
Right now, Windows Vista is on a shelf behind me gathering dust. I dualboot Windows XP Pro and Linux. For daily use, I tend towards Linux. For gaming, I boot to Windows. If it wasn't for games, I'd be using Linux exclusively (don't have to worry about viruses and don't have to worry about fragmented files). I'd strongly recommend Linux to anyone who is tech savvy enough (just a word of caution: linux is a bit more difficult to set up) as its much better stable OS than anything Microsoft offers. There are various distributions of Linux and I'd suggest Ubuntu (http://www.ubuntu.com/) for newbies as it works out of the box for most systems best of all its free. Just my 2 cents.

IsaanRanger
07-13-2008, 02:34 AM
I am still sticking to my XP 64 and it runs fine with all 4GB and recognizes all 4GB of my 2 DUAL CHANNEL 2 GB sticks.

I do have a copy of Vista Ultimate x64, but I am reluctant to use it, since I only have RAID 0 400GB now and would rather get a larger RAID set for Vista if I was to dual boot, since I have too many games on my drive now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Plus Silent Hunter III might not work anymore in Vista.

I probably wont do it, even for DX 10, cause my 2 Geforce 8800GT SLI config is not 10.1 compatible. They now have a DX 10.1 and the latest Nvidia GTX260/280 are not compatible either yet.

My 8800 GT SLI setup works smooth in SH III and SH IV with all details maxed, but I am stuck at 1440x900 for SH IV, because when I run it at the native 1920x1200 of my 26" widescreen, it runs smooth but during explosions or many ships, it will slow down a bit and stutter, but it doesnt happen at 1440x900 though, I think its due to the 512MB size on each 8800GT, cause more memory is needed for higher resolutions.

I can play FSX smooth and nicely even at 1920x1200 but its a CPU dependent game pretty much.

But pretty happy with SH IV performance

Celeon999
07-13-2008, 03:00 AM
Yep, ive recently read about DX 10.1


Good thing is that all upcoming games of the next 1 to 2 years will be programmed in DX 10.0 and 10.1 will feature no visible difference to 10.0 anyway.

Just code improvements. Meaning that there will be no 10.1-only games.

Only thing it will do is giving people with next gen cards which support 10.1 a slight performance advantage.