Quote:
Originally Posted by boe
Actually it doesn't make sense. Cars used to only go 50mph and consume 20 miles to the gallon. Should we ASSUme that to get 100mph you would have to get 10mpg?
NO - you can actually make things more efficient. A computer used to fill an entire warehouse and it wasn't as fast as calculator. Should we ASSUme that it would take two warehouses to make something as fast as a calculator?
By studying what others have accomplished we can make things better. We can improve efficiency - lightbulbs, windturbines, solar cells, batteries etc etc etc.
Those who don't study the past are doomed to be idiots.
I've worked in software development and have seen how some very simple code modifications improved efficiency and speed by 400% - no new hardware required- actually used less bandwidth as well.
|
I guess i chose my words too hastily. what I was reffering it to was dx9 performance in vista as compared to xp. from my understanding, vista is not optimized for dx9, due to a brand new kernel. as how dx7 didnt run as well on a xp machine in comparison to the older OS's
from what i know, vista is following the same trend xp went through back in the day. xp was a more stable OS to 98 (though not 2000) but its hardware requirements made it so a computer with 256MB ram would run it slower than a identical system with 98 or 2000. look at xp now. its gotten more attention over the years as newer pc's became more capable of meeting the OS's requirements.
Same thing is noticed with Vista. it runs pretty sh*tty on my friends computer with 1gb ram. his resolve was loading XP and his computer is perfectly happy with the games he runs. i'm currently running vista64 with 4gb ram and it runs a whole lot better than xp64 for me (i kept it for a month before i made my decision to switch back). less bugs, and surprizingly less issues with crashing programs/games.
I guess this is just a YMMV case depending on the hardware behind the OS