SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Which os is best for sh4 ?

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- Silent Hunter 4: Wolves of the Pacific (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=202)

- - Which os is best for sh4 ? (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=150090)

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by FIREWALL (Post 1075979)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk (Post 1075956)

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.

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

Quote:

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.