Which os is best for sh4 ?

[FIREWALL]

As the title asks, which is best is a tough one.

I have a dual boot gameing rig with XP sp3 and Vista Ultimate 64.

I put SH4 on both and with jsgme have latest TMO and RFB.

So we don't go OT let me say BOTH, are EXCELLENT. :salute:

I set all the setting to max. (why screw around :haha:)

I couldn't see any diference. Now that's just me.

Vista has DX10 and it recognises my 8 gigs of ram but,

do's SH4 take advantage of this ?

Would like to hear all opinions. :DL

[SteamWake]

Answer is simple. The OS it was written for. Windows XP

[AVGWarhawk]

I have 8 gig RAM. SH4 runs maxed and the hard drive is never accessed to work like virtual memory. Vista 64. My XP set up with 2 gig of memory would work my hard drive quite a bit. DX10 makes no difference. The game needs DX9.

[FIREWALL]

Thx SteamWake :salute: I kinda thought so.

It was an early morning thought rattling around in my head before first cup of coffee. :haha:

[Fincuan]

At least at my end the answer is simple: It runs way better on 64-bit Windows 7 than 32-bit XP.

64-bit Windows 7 :D

[Rockin Robbins]

The best by far for SH4 is Ubuntu Linux!:D But SH4 won't run on it.:88)

[SteamWake]

Just dont forget to mention all the little hoops you need to jump through to run it under vista. Such as

* Admin Account

* Dont install to the 'default' directory

etc.

Im sure there are some how to guides around.

[FIREWALL]

Just dont forget to mention all the little hoops you need to jump through to run it under vista. Such as

* Admin Account

* Dont install to the 'default' directory

etc.

Im sure there are some how to guides around.

I just copied it over from XP after fresh install.

No problems. Ran right off the gitgo.

It's the SH4 1.5 UBM version.

Also copied over jsgme with RFB and TMO 1.5 versions

[AVGWarhawk]

Just dont forget to mention all the little hoops you need to jump through to run it under vista. Such as

* Admin Account

* Dont install to the 'default' directory

etc.

Im sure there are some how to guides around.

I can run without using Admin Account. You can install to default directory and it will run. It worked for me. The only issue was introducing mods to the folder when in this default directory. Very little hoop jumping. After a jump or two, the game runs and utilizes everything you can throw at it.

Here is my desktop.


http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/avgwarhawk/Capture-1.jpg

Short cut right to SH4..just like XP. Both OS work well with XP. I happen to think Vista does does a better job because you can feed it all kinds of RAM if you have it to spare.

[FIREWALL]

Did everyone with Vista throw away their XP software ? :DL

[AVGWarhawk]

Did everyone with Vista throw away their XP software ? :DL


Actually, my daughters use my old machine. It is perfect for them and they love it. It has XP, 7800 GT, 3200+ CPU and 2 gigs of ram. A hell of a lot of instamessaging going on and fast:D

[FIREWALL]

What about the XP software ?

I guess some don't like dual boot. :hmmm:

[AVGWarhawk]

FW, once I experienced Vista I did not look back to XP. See, I had a machine made with Vista on it. No bloatware or other garbage from off the shelf brands. As a stand along OS it has worked beautifully. Not to say there was a glitch or two and there was but the age of the OS made it easy to find the answers to any glitch. Really, when I fire up my rig is it is just extremely fun. With the power I have I do not tweak anything. All games at full tilt. It just made things more enjoyable to me. Boot up and ready takes 45 seconds. Shutdown 30 seconds. True, Vista was rubbish in the beginning. Now it is a good OS and I have not had any BSOD or other issues. Just a great experience with Vista. I know other can not say that and I feel their pain.

[FIREWALL]

I do know I'm not going to run out and get W-7.

[AVGWarhawk]

Thus far I see no reason for me to run out and get 7 either. Vista runs fine for me. A lot state it is faster than Vista. So far, I see that it boots faster than Vista. I have not seen much else that makes me need 7 right off the bat.

[FIREWALL]

When it really come down to it. Just how fast is fast ? :haha:

[AVGWarhawk]

When it really come down to it. Just how fast is fast ? :haha:

Exactly FW. Is booting up 5 whole seconds faster than Vista something that will make me go drop money on a new OS? No sir. I have found through reading about Vista and what it really needs to work before I decided on what type of machine I would build. Vista likes power. Feed it and you are good. I had built this:

Phenom X4 9850
8 Gig RAM
MSI mobo
650 PSU
Evga 9800GT

Feed the need.

[MonTana_Prussian]

FW, once I experienced Vista I did not look back to XP. See, I had a machine made with Vista on it. No bloatware or other garbage from off the shelf brands. As a stand along OS it has worked beautifully. Not to say there was a glitch or two and there was but the age of the OS made it easy to find the answers to any glitch. Really, when I fire up my rig is it is just extremely fun. With the power I have I do not tweak anything. All games at full tilt. It just made things more enjoyable to me. Boot up and ready takes 45 seconds. Shutdown 30 seconds. True, Vista was rubbish in the beginning. Now it is a good OS and I have not had any BSOD or other issues. Just a great experience with Vista. I know other can not say that and I feel their pain.


I had the exact same experience,as you did. Had a new machine built with Vista and everything works great. I'd never go back to XP.

[AVGWarhawk]

Vista in a nutshell and I found this on the MS Vista forums:


Hi there -- please don't read this post as being aggressive -- not meant to be --merely "informative" --at least I hope it is.

This topic has been repeated "ad Nauseam" -- two main issues why vista didn't work originally -- not necessarily 100% Microsoft's fault but MS wasn't guiltless either.

1) Vista was released too early and was pre-installed on unsuitable hardware.

2) Computers got into the habit of being delivered without the VISTA install disk -- retail or OEM version.

Now if you've ever bought a computer from a store you know that there's so much crap and adware installed on it you want to do a clean install and start again to get rid of all the junk.

Also you couldn't optimise the OS because if you needed to re-install it all you had was the manufacturers recovery disk -- which if it worked at all would then re-install all te original crap and adware on it.

Now a few years later the hardware is better and SP1 (and SP2) are out there so VISTA will run better -- however the damage has already been done so MS needs a new product which will run more "leanly" on a wide range of hardware.

There weren't many "Upgraders" to VISTA who had older hardware and found XP running very nicely. Some but not a significant number -- and these people had proper install disks so they could adjust their systems properly.




It got bad press for the reason noted above. Run it on a machine that is capable of running it and your good to go.