if you want to game.. go nvidia

Including him.

 

Yeah, it would be somewhat interesting to see just how much an ol' GeForce DDR can do. I would expect 640x480 with no specular highlights would be playable (remember that it's primarily single player, where high framerates aren't nearly as important).

 

Uh...

My 800MHz P3 with single-channel DRDRAM (256MB) takes roughly one minute to boot Windows XP Pro.

Your computer sucks.

Edit: Brain fart on the bbcode tags.

 

SO basically, it takes 3 pages of crap to drag the fact out of chalnoth that he was talking about some "custom" way of installing nvdia's drivers to make do with one less reboot? And his issue is that he cannot do this with ATI's drivers?
PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT.

 

You know, one time I tried to do my own custom electrical servicing.
It worked fine the first time, but when I replaced a 2K3 Ohm resistor with a 5K Ohm resistor in my circuit boards I ended up blowing up my house.

I blame CLAROSTAT for my house blowing up and I'm never going to buy their parts again.

 

It is a different OS. And my computer is quite fast. In particular, the hard drive is very new, and I've tested it at about 40MB/sec read speed sustained. I believe that Microsoft actually implemented some faster bootup stuff in XP, but I can't be certain. If my system is abnormal for a Windows 2000 system, it could be due to something about my hardware configuration, or it could be due to the way my hard drive is partitioned (I dual-boot with Linux). But I don't think so....

 

win2k, which is what Chal is using, boots slower than a tortoise. winXP actually has reasonable boot times.

Pretty sure you're right.

 

Win2K boots pretty fast for me. Maybe network connections can still affect bootup times as much as they did with Win9x?

 

Probably DHCP. Still causes slow boots in Win2k/XP.

 

but much much worse in 2000 than XP.

 

As far as the way this thread has progressed, I think you guys need to reboot your brains. Gawd, what an incredibly important thing to discuss about when it comes to one extra re-boot for driver updates/installs...

Tag, your 800MHz P3 with single-channel DRDRAM (256MB) machine certainly don't suck

 

why, whats the rev. got under da hood?

 

You know? You wouldn't think it would, given that Linux takes essentially zero time to initialize the network connection (which I can actually check, since it says what it's doing....). Then again, nobody said Microsoft was the best OS producer....

Anyway, the worst bootup problems came from when I tried to install Linux on an extended partition. For some odd reason, having that Linux-created extended partition on my hard drive caused Windows to take an extra 2-5 minutes to boot (now that was annoying....and it took me forever to figure out what caused it). The problem was marked by a long delay once it switched to my desktop resolution where nothing was displayed on the screen (just the teal background I use that is visible before wallpaper comes up).

 

For me with wireless under XP, DHCP would add about 15 extra seconds. Ethernet, especially if you have a cable modem or university connection going straight to your box, would probably take about the same time, if not longer.

 

just some statistics:
2100+, 1GB RAM, Win2K SP4, 80GB Seagate 7200RPM, lots of services&apps (vmware, 2OS2, Outpost, UDagent, CA eTrust to name main autostart apps)
IMHO reboot is >2 minutes (never timed, but if you like ....)
And no, I have no DHCP.
My experience says that although XP is much faster after clean install, the more things you install the more reboot-times are closer to 2K's.
And besides - 2K is more stable , who needs that lamo's interface ????

 

run->services.msc->Themes->Stop->Disabled->OK.

 

Pretty much a summary of how i felt after moving to a 9800 Pro from tnt2/gf2/3/4 - combined with bad luck i switched back to NVIDIA and 5900u. Of course i miss a lot the AA, PS2 and AA/AF performance but i have to confess that i am a lot less irritated by my video card now. i expect most of you to disagree but as we all know opionions are like...

edit: i just went trough the rest of this thread (what can i say i am bored) and before anyone shoots me i d like to say that i had no problems whatsoever with one extra reboot when installing ATi drivers compared to NVIDIA drivers done the...custom way

 

Er, isn't that a rather personal question?!

-FUDie

 

digitalwanderer wrote:
"Add nVnews to Zarich's posting spree:
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25607"

good find digitalwanderer, I mean good memory!

it makes me wonder from your find and others here about Zarich's posting spree. Is this guy for real? or maybe he works for nvidia or is he a fanatic.
boy there's alot of bs going around lately by nvidia and there fanatics.
if both nvidia and ati has the same issues in the exact same games they would blame everything on ati, instead of blaming the game developers or nvidia.
just because nvidia had a good reputation about their drivers back then doesn't mean their drivers now are good or better than ati's.
it's people like nvidia and fanatics that spread bad rumours about ati drivers , just like the employee representing nvidia recently.
so every little problem they encounter from now on regardless if it's ati's driver issues or game developer's issues or that nvidia has same or more problems, they blame everything on ati.

hardocp has a new review I'm sure you've probably seen already, shows both ati and nvidia has driver problems , but nvidia was much worse. I don't see nvidia owners complaining how bad their drivers are, but they end up complaining about something else other than nvidia.



http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTgwLDE=

 

snowy, you're seriously getting annoying with your continuous "OMG NVIDIA HAS DRIVER PROBLEMS OMGWTF!!1111omglolz" postings tonight.

Please, take your fanboyism away.