Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: windows 7 vs vista

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: windows 7 vs vista Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: windows 7 vs vista - 2/23/2010 10:56:58 AM   
IanAM


Posts: 71
Joined: 9/25/2003
From: Aberdare, Wales
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

My only gripe is the size of the icons on the desktop are massive. I can get them down to a 16 but they still look huge. Ive shoved them on my taskbar.



Hold down CTRL and use mouse wheel to resize Windows 7 desktop icons :)



_____________________________

Ian

hill107.net - documents and photos relating to the Battle of Arnhem, Battle of Crete, WW2 Airborne

(in reply to wodin)
Post #: 31
RE: windows 7 vs vista - 2/23/2010 5:00:39 PM   
Prince of Eckmühl


Posts: 2456
Joined: 6/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
I turned off "desktop icons" altogether. Icons that I use a lot, I pin to the taskbar. The desktop icons aren't deleted, BTW. They're down on the right side of my taskbar and can be accessed by clicking on the arrows to the right of the word "Desktop." I can also get to them through Windows Explorer.

_____________________________

Government is the opiate of the masses.

(in reply to IanAM)
Post #: 32
RE: windows 7 vs vista - 2/24/2010 9:36:46 AM   
wodin


Posts: 10422
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: England
Status: offline
thanks for the tip.

_____________________________


(in reply to IanAM)
Post #: 33
RE: windows 7 vs vista - 3/1/2010 10:04:41 AM   
ilovestrategy


Posts: 3627
Joined: 6/11/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline
I have 2 comps. One has Vista 64 and the other came with Windows 7. And both run smoothly and play the exact same games with no difference.

_____________________________

After 16 years, Civ II still has me in it's clutches LOL!!!
Now CIV IV has me in it's evil clutches!

(in reply to panzers)
Post #: 34
RE: windows 7 vs vista - 3/1/2010 11:16:36 AM   
Knavery


Posts: 286
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: martok


quote:

ORIGINAL: Knavery

That's a very pessimistic viewpoint, but I guess Microsoft deserves it witht their track record. I'm not saying their OS's have been horrible. I mean... I've always gotten them to work with what I needed to accomplish. But then it's nothing for me to format my hard drive and start from scratch in the middle of the week. I will say though that I think it's much more stable than XP. I have run into a few driver issues, but, I haven't had any OS crashes to speak of, and that's saying a lot with a MS product.


Psst. Knavery, you've responded to a spambot. Just an FYI....



Good lord. Can't we just kill the people responsible for these?

_____________________________

Windows 7 Home Premium (x64)
3.4 gigahertz AMD Phenom 965 Quad Core
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 1024Meg
4GB RAM

(in reply to martok)
Post #: 35
RE: windows 7 vs vista - 3/1/2010 10:11:08 PM   
bartholimew

 

Posts: 86
Joined: 2/23/2004
From: Swastika Ontario Seriously I am
Status: offline
One problem you have to watch out for with Win 7, and vista for that matter is saving a file, thinking everything is OK, only to go back and the file is not there. It could be a database file, gamesave file or anything. If you are not running as admin then all your work is kept in a shadow file, and its possible to be file swapping from admin to shadow without realizing it. There is no warning.

The problem gets more complicated if you are working on a file simultaneously with multiple programs open at once. Sure you may have the program set to admin mode, but if your compiler suddenly needs to open proprietary software to debug, and you didn't set user attributes on the debugger then your work is down the tubes and you don't even know it. This was never a problem in XP. And ofcourse one finds out the hard way.

(in reply to Knavery)
Post #: 36
RE: windows 7 vs vista - 3/2/2010 3:59:04 AM   
rhondabrwn


Posts: 2582
Joined: 9/29/2004
From: Snowflake, Arizona
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: IanAM


quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

My only gripe is the size of the icons on the desktop are massive. I can get them down to a 16 but they still look huge. Ive shoved them on my taskbar.



Hold down CTRL and use mouse wheel to resize Windows 7 desktop icons :)




Fantastic tip, thanks :)

_____________________________

Love & Peace,

Far Dareis Mai

My old Piczo site seems to be gone, so no more Navajo Nation pics :(

(in reply to IanAM)
Post #: 37
RE: windows 7 vs vista - 3/3/2010 1:27:36 AM   
diablo1

 

Posts: 994
Joined: 2/27/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn


quote:

ORIGINAL: IanAM


quote:

ORIGINAL: wodin

My only gripe is the size of the icons on the desktop are massive. I can get them down to a 16 but they still look huge. Ive shoved them on my taskbar.



Hold down CTRL and use mouse wheel to resize Windows 7 desktop icons :)




Fantastic tip, thanks :)


It works with Vista 64 as well.

(in reply to rhondabrwn)
Post #: 38
RE: windows 7 vs vista - 3/3/2010 4:58:49 PM   
jackx

 

Posts: 353
Joined: 7/8/2009
From: Germany
Status: offline
I've been running win7/x64 on my laptop for a while now, and it's great - and while just with Vista, sound drivers were a pain initially, it now works smoothly, including the 5.1 USB headset (though that requires non-original drivers and the expedient of keeping the recording device window open at all times, it's still a marked improvement over not working at all with Vista).

Regarding desktop icons, I just use a couple in addition to the default shortcuts from windows itself (for my music and current work directory, as well as a shortcut for the radio), but I do allow myself the luxury of getting them icons matching my current wallpaper/theme.
All the other shortcuts go into the "game" and "apps" taskbar menus respectively, which keeps the desktop clear for cluttering it with actual work... ;)



_____________________________

no truth - no justice
all false belief
blinded by morality
there shall be ... no peace

(in reply to diablo1)
Post #: 39
RE: windows 7 vs vista - 3/5/2010 2:27:16 AM   
LarryP


Posts: 3552
Joined: 5/15/2005
From: Carson City, NV
Status: offline
I would like to upgrade my desktop running XP-Pro 32 bit to Windows-7 64 bit. The main reason is that XP does not recognize more than 2 gigs of RAM. I did the /3GB in the boot.ini file and that did nothing. I have read and tried many mixed solutions but I still have 2 gb showing in the system display. BIOS says 4 gb just fine so I know it's software.

I have tons of older games and that is my main concern over Windows-7 64 bit and drivers. I don't want to not be able to play any of these games.

I wish XP 32 bit would read 4 gb like Vista 32 bit does. Ticks me off...

(in reply to panzers)
Post #: 40
RE: windows 7 vs vista - 3/5/2010 3:11:53 AM   
Fred98


Posts: 4377
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline
Go to the Intel web site.

Note some of their processors are designed to work under 64 bit.

WIN 7 comes in 32 bit and 64 bit version.

To run the 64 bit version you just use a 64 bit processor.

WIN XP is 32 bit. This can utilise up to 4 GIG of RAM

If you want more than 4 GIG you need a 64 bit processor.

-





(in reply to LarryP)
Post #: 41
RE: windows 7 vs vista - 3/5/2010 3:48:20 AM   
GoodGuy

 

Posts: 1506
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: Cologne, Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LarryP

The main reason is that XP does not recognize more than 2 gigs of RAM. I did the /3GB in the boot.ini file and that did nothing. I have read and tried many mixed solutions but I still have 2 gb showing in the system display. BIOS says 4 gb just fine so I know it's software.

I have tons of older games and that is my main concern over Windows-7 64 bit and drivers. I don't want to not be able to play any of these games.


XP 32bit recognizes ~ 3.2(5) GB of RAM. Some boards may just recognize 2 GB due to the configuration of (or lack of additional) RAM slots. Some newer boards will detect and address 4GB automatically, but SOME (older?) boards need to have an option in the BIOS enabled, in order to get at least 3.2 GB in XP 32bit (with no boot.ini switches involved).

This function should read like "Memory Remap Function", "Memory Relocation", "Remap PCI Memory Gap", "Memory Hoisting", "Memory Reclaim" or just "Memory Remapping", and (if present in your BIOS) should be enabled.

In order to try to "convince" XP to use 4GB you could start with the /PAE switch in the boot.ini .

This (if your mainboard supports memory remapping) would still not give you access to the entire 4GB range, as it will just show up in the system info (where you can access the device manager, hardware, remote, updates etc, whatever the system info is called in a non-German version ) as "physical address extension", along with with the 3.0 or 3.2 GB, depending on the mainboard.

So the /PAE switch in the boot.ini seems to be for looks only.
Thing is, Windows will only free 2GB of RAM for any given application anyways, as it reserves ~1GB for kernel-mode programs.

So, maybe you could try another mix of switches, like these here:

multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(1)partition(1)\WINDOWS="Microsoft Windows XP Professional" /noexecute=optin /fastdetect /3GB /userva=2990

In theory, the /3GB switch ensures that XP-32bit will make 3GB available for the user, and 1GB for Kernel-mode.
The switch /userva=2990 is meant to ensure that applications that have a hard time with the /3GB switch (and tend to crash) still run.

These 2 switches can cause a terrible mix of blue screens, OS "irritations", a series of CTDs and what not, so be warned.
Some people report halfway hassle-free operation, but I guess it depends on what type of hardware and what software applications you're using.

Note: You need a mainboard that offers memory remapping (either auto or as a switch in BIOS), the mainboard has to support 4GB properly, plus you need the right mix of RAM strips (say 1 x 2GB strip and 2 x 1GB strips may not work, as quite some boards require to have the same strips on the [dual channel] RAM slots). Once your hardware and BIOS settings meet all these requirements, you can experiment with the switches. But be warned, Larry.

I'd get Windows 7, it should support most of your games.


quote:

I wish XP 32 bit would read 4 gb like Vista 32 bit does. Ticks me off...


Vista 32bit does not support 4 GB. Microsoft restricted the use of RAM, because hardware manufacturers tend not to cater for 4GB-compatibility, according to Microsoft Developer Doug Cook. So, according to him, many manufacturers do not consider the use of additional (necessary) components which would ensure that the entire 4GB range could be addressed, as this would increase costs for production and development.
Quote from Cook (my rough translation, it's from a German article):

"Since Microsoft can't ensure that all hardware suppliers equip their products with the required configuration, it was decided that the end-user versions of Vista 32-bit will only address the first 32 bit of the address space. Thereby the available RAM will shrink, but the amount of errors will decline essentially, too."

In short: RAM-access in Vista 32bit had been limited to 3.xGB as well, just like in XP 32-bit.

After SP1/SP2 M$ confused and annoyed customers even more, as the task manager will now display 4GB of RAM, even though still only 3 (or 3.2, if you will) GB can be used on Vista 32bit.

ATTENTION:

Both Vista 64bit AND Windows 7 have a RAM "soft"-limit that should default to "disabled" upon installation (I guess, I still have XP). After one or another windows update this switch may be set to enabled by some faulty flag in some of the updates, though.
If you see your RAM reverting to 3.2 GB (or some other weird vaulue) some time, although you have 4GB or more installed, then you have to disable the limit again. Reports on the net indicate that this mainly happens to Windows 7 users, rather rarely to Vista 64 users.

How to disable the RAM-limit:

Start -> RUN -> msconfig

"Boot" tab (german menu: "Start") -> advanced options

then uncheck "maximum memory" .

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

If you want more than 4 GIG you need a 64 bit processor.


Most CPUs process with 64bit internally for quite some time already, just the external bus was limited to 32-bit.
So, you need a 64-bit OS + a CPU that has to have/use 40 address lanes internally, so that it's able to address RAM above the 32bit range.
EDIT: Basically all modern CPUs are able to do that, starting with Intel's Core2 Duo and AMD's Athlon 64 (~2007 ?).

< Message edited by GoodGuy -- 3/5/2010 5:03:12 AM >


_____________________________

"Aw Nuts"
General Anthony McAuliffe
December 22nd, 1944
Bastogne

---
"I've always felt that the AA (Alied Assault engine) had the potential to be [....] big."
Tim Stone
8th of August, 2006

(in reply to LarryP)
Post #: 42
RE: windows 7 vs vista - 3/5/2010 5:17:11 AM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 4061
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
My, rather simplistic, understanding is that Win 7/64 will run the 32 bit games. It's the 16 bit that won't run.


(in reply to GoodGuy)
Post #: 43
RE: windows 7 vs vista - 3/5/2010 6:18:25 AM   
Andrew Williams


Posts: 6116
Joined: 1/8/2001
From: Australia
Status: offline
ahhhh DOS



(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 44
RE: windows 7 vs vista - 3/5/2010 8:32:10 PM   
Andrew Williams


Posts: 6116
Joined: 1/8/2001
From: Australia
Status: offline
Had to load up this first though...



(in reply to Andrew Williams)
Post #: 45
RE: windows 7 vs vista - 3/8/2010 2:50:17 AM   
ilovestrategy


Posts: 3627
Joined: 6/11/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline
Ahhhhhhh yes Andrew! Dos games with note taking! I used a lot of graph paper mapping my way through dungeons in Ultima 6! 

_____________________________

After 16 years, Civ II still has me in it's clutches LOL!!!
Now CIV IV has me in it's evil clutches!

(in reply to Andrew Williams)
Post #: 46
RE: windows 7 vs vista - 3/8/2010 2:51:18 AM   
ilovestrategy


Posts: 3627
Joined: 6/11/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

My, rather simplistic, understanding is that Win 7/64 will run the 32 bit games. It's the 16 bit that won't run.




That is correct. My wifes Win7/64 will run Civ II.

_____________________________

After 16 years, Civ II still has me in it's clutches LOL!!!
Now CIV IV has me in it's evil clutches!

(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 47
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: windows 7 vs vista Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.156