Page 31 of 34 FirstFirst ... 2131 ... LastLast
Results 751 to 775 of 846
  1. #751
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    35
    Posts
    34,262
    Rep Power
    222
    Quote Originally Posted by MATRIX 2 View Post
    Look at what has been done with smartphones.

    MS is running WP8 on smartphones with at little as 256MB of RAM.
    I haven't checked out WP8 yet but sounds impressive for a 256MB. Though I'm thinking it doesn't come with all the WP8 features and it's very likely that you will see a lot more features on the next Xbox than what you'd see on a smartphone.

    MS is good at features and keeping a decent footprint but this comparison wouldn't help us here because we don't know what would be in the upcoming Xbox. What I can guess is that it will be more feature-heavy than the PS4.

  2. #752
    Forum Sage
    MATRIX 2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    D.C.
    Posts
    8,520
    Rep Power
    136
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    I haven't checked out WP8 yet but sounds impressive for a 256MB. Though I'm thinking it doesn't come with all the WP8 features and it's very likely that you will see a lot more features on the next Xbox than what you'd see on a smartphone.

    MS is good at features and keeping a decent footprint but this comparison wouldn't help us here because we don't know what would be in the upcoming Xbox. What I can guess is that it will be more feature-heavy than the PS4.
    256MB for the full windows phone 8 experience.

    I don't expect the OS of the next xbox to be using multiple gigabytes of ram, it doesn't make any sense.

    1GB or RAM is the minimum to run Windows 8, there is no way they would make their console OS that resource hungry with less functionality.


    Edit: Looks like they upped the minimum to 512MB or RAM for WP8, 256MB was the minimum for WP 7/7.5/7.8.

  3. #753
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    35
    Posts
    34,262
    Rep Power
    222
    Quote Originally Posted by MATRIX 2 View Post
    256MB for the full windows phone 8 experience.

    I don't expect the OS of the next xbox to be using multiple gigabytes of ram, it doesn't make any sense.

    1GB or RAM is the minimum to run Windows 8, there is no way they would make their console OS that resource hungry with less functionality.


    Edit: Looks like they upped the minimum to 512MB or RAM for WP8, 256MB was the minimum for WP 7/7.5/7.8.
    Minimum requirement can be misleading. You need 1GB minimum for WP8 to run, does not mean that it's going to be fast, you would need more RAM to run programs within.

    I'm not saying that they can't make a 1GB OS (well, the fully fledged one I doubt), though I think in-game and what actually matters in terms of RAM usage during games...it's very possible for them to keep it well within 1GB. Since we don't know what the next Xbox is all about, I can only guess.

  4. #754
    Elite Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,537
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    Minimum requirement can be misleading. You need 1GB minimum for WP8 to run, does not mean that it's going to be fast, you would need more RAM to run programs within.

    WRONG.

    I can assure you that you can run other programs within Windows with that 1GB of RAM. In fact, you can technically run Office 2010 on Windows 8 with just 512MB of RAM. I have a system here in the office doing precisely that.

    It's slow, but it does work. Windows 8 requirements are not "just" for the OS as you imply. They are to run applications within the OS. You can run IE, Outlook, Access, Excel, etc... with no problems with just 1 GB of RAM in Windows 8. You can even run some older games that only require 512MB-1GB of RAM.


    You like to make a lot of guesses. Too bad you lack the knowledge to make educated ones.

  5. #755
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    35
    Posts
    34,262
    Rep Power
    222
    Quote Originally Posted by Completely Average View Post
    WRONG.

    I can assure you that you can run other programs within Windows with that 1GB of RAM. In fact, you can technically run Office 2010 on Windows 8 with just 512MB of RAM. I have a system here in the office doing precisely that.

    It's slow, but it does work. Windows 8 requirements are not "just" for the OS as you imply. They are to run applications within the OS. You can run IE, Outlook, Access, Excel, etc... with no problems with just 1 GB of RAM in Windows 8. You can even run some older games that only require 512MB-1GB of RAM.


    You like to make a lot of guesses. Too bad you lack the knowledge to make educated ones.
    I like how you're accusing me of making a lot of guesses when you don't have a trend to prove that. OK lol. Go ahead, please provide how you've come to that conclusion.

    Yes, I don't have WP8 and I can't confirm that but I'm speaking from experience on various OS that I have tried in the past.

    i.e. http://www.makeuseof.com/answers/ram...run-windows-8/

    It's not any different from the past OSs. Minimum doesn't mean everything will run fine. It means that it's the minimum you need to run the OS. I know that 1GB is not enough for XP even though XP has a minimum much lower than that.

    2GB is optimum for general purpose, not games.

    But yea, if you want to run a $#@!ty game or a current game that barely runs, I'm sure you could go about a gig. Anything less? I'd love to see real results somewhere.

  6. #756
    Forum Sage
    MATRIX 2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    D.C.
    Posts
    8,520
    Rep Power
    136
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    I like how you're accusing me of making a lot of guesses when you don't have a trend to prove that. OK lol. Go ahead, please provide how you've come to that conclusion.

    Yes, I don't have WP8 and I can't confirm that but I'm speaking from experience on various OS that I have tried in the past.

    i.e. http://www.makeuseof.com/answers/ram...run-windows-8/

    It's not any different from the past OSs. Minimum doesn't mean everything will run fine. It means that it's the minimum you need to run the OS. I know that 1GB is not enough for XP even though XP has a minimum much lower than that.

    2GB is optimum for general purpose, not games.

    But yea, if you want to run a $#@!ty game or a current game that barely runs, I'm sure you could go about a gig. Anything less? I'd love to see real results somewhere.
    Well considering that 1GB worked on Vista which used significantly more resources than windows 7 and windows 8 uses even less resources than windows 7 ....

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/2163/3

    http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2...windows-8.aspx

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/5630/i...mer-preview/16

  7. #757
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    35
    Posts
    34,262
    Rep Power
    222
    It looks like its definitely more efficient as it has more features and runs marginally less than Windows 7. But when you have a PC that barely has any free RAM left (more than half of it cached for better performance), you wont be using that PC for much of anything.

    Thats just the OS, youre not doing anything with it. The minimum is meant to say that you can run it, how useful it is, is another story. I had Windows 7 on my 1GB netbook and it would chug extremely slow. Granted its a netbook so I know the bottlenecks are plenty. I did have a computer that had a fast 1GB RAM (Kingston 400DDR) back in 2005 and it was great for that time but it felt slow as I started doing multiple things. i.e. trying to play a game while surfing or chatting and that's speaking about XP that only took about 250MB of RAM.

    It all boils down to what MS is putting in the customized OS of the next Xbox and how customized is it. If theyre efficient with the barebones OS then how efficient and customized is the part where the pre-built software comes in and how much of that software is used in-game. So it all depends on how many features they want in-game because truly its the in-game features that people care about, not outside. You could voice chat or video chat all you wanted outside the games on the PS3 but that didnt help much.

    Depending on what MS wants the OS to do and what they want it to do in-game, will decide how much the RAM will be used. Because the full OS RAM usage wont matter as it will be freed once the game starts.

  8. #758
    Forum Sage
    MATRIX 2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    D.C.
    Posts
    8,520
    Rep Power
    136
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    It looks like it’s definitely more efficient as it has more features and runs marginally less than Windows 7. But when you have a PC that barely has any free RAM left (more than half of it cached for better performance), you won’t be using that PC for much of anything.

    That’s just the OS, you’re not doing anything with it. The minimum is meant to say that you can run it, how useful it is, is another story. I had Windows 7 on my 1GB netbook and it would chug extremely slow. Granted it’s a netbook so I know the bottlenecks are plenty. I did have a computer that had a fast 1GB RAM (Kingston 400DDR) back in 2005 and it was great for that time but it felt slow as I started doing multiple things. i.e. trying to play a game while surfing or chatting and that's speaking about XP that only took about 250MB of RAM.

    It all boils down to what MS is putting in the customized OS of the next Xbox and how customized is it. If they’re efficient with the barebones OS then how efficient and customized is the part where the pre-built software comes in and how much of that software is used in-game. So it all depends on how many features they want in-game because truly it’s the in-game features that people care about, not outside. You could voice chat or video chat all you wanted outside the games on the PS3 but that didn’t help much.

    Depending on what MS wants the OS to do and what they want it to do in-game, will decide how much the RAM will be used. Because the full OS RAM usage won’t matter as it will be freed once the game starts.
    I'd suggest you try the Windows 8 trial on that netbook and then comment on that performance.

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/eval.../jj554510.aspx




    As for the rest, MS can focus on having its next xbox OS provide only the features wants without the overhead of a traditional computer OS.

    Considering palm was doing multitasking on their pre back in 2009 (with 256MB of ram at that) I don't see Microsoft having any major issues implementing various features that can be accessed in game.

    They already did a pretty good job with the 360 guide (accessed in game with 32MB of memory). I can only imagine what they will be able to accomplish with 512MB-1GB.

  9. #759
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    35
    Posts
    34,262
    Rep Power
    222
    Quote Originally Posted by MATRIX 2 View Post
    I'd suggest you try the Windows 8 trial on that netbook and then comment on that performance.

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/eval.../jj554510.aspx




    As for the rest, MS can focus on having its next xbox OS provide only the features wants without the overhead of a traditional computer OS.

    Considering palm was doing multitasking on their pre back in 2009 (with 256MB of ram at that) I don't see Microsoft having any major issues implementing various features that can be accessed in game.

    They already did a pretty good job with the 360 guide (accessed in game with 32MB of memory). I can only imagine what they will be able to accomplish with 512MB-1GB.
    I'm downloading that as we speak but I wanna try it out on my PC rather than the netbook.

    We'll just have to see because seeing how PS4 is 512MB with just a number of features that apparently rely on a lot of RAM, it's clear that it depends on what you want the OS to do rather than just looking at the number of features because some features can be RAM-heavy while others, not so.

    Keep in mind that the most extensive feature the 360 OS probably had was the voice chat. The rest don't take much so while it was a great feat, the in-game OS really was barebones compared to even phones from likely 5 years ago but for consoles, it was significant.

    We're just going to have to wait and see, imo MS' focus is going to be services but I can only guess, maybe they'll go the barebones approach, who knows?

    I'll post my impressions once I try out W8.

  10. #760
    Banned

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    850
    Rep Power
    0
    I'd be curious to what extent they use Windows 8 if the rumors are true. If you read the books on how the Xbox and Xbox 360 came to be, Bill Gates REALLY wanted to put MOST of the Windows OS in the console. After his own Xbox team advised heavily against it, he finally relented and we got a very stripped down custom version in the Xbox platform. It was the right choice.

  11. #761
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    35
    Posts
    34,262
    Rep Power
    222
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatSpaceKoaster View Post
    I'd be curious to what extent they use Windows 8 if the rumors are true. If you read the books on how the Xbox and Xbox 360 came to be, Bill Gates REALLY wanted to put MOST of the Windows OS in the console. After his own Xbox team advised heavily against it, he finally relented and we got a very stripped down custom version in the Xbox platform. It was the right choice.
    If he wanted a PC box then that would've worked and that wouldn't be such a bad idea. If you think about it, PS4 is more like a PC than any other console ever.

    I would not have agreed with this idea until now. I am a console lover but this is a good way to combine the best PC has to offer with what the console has to offer. Best of both worlds.

    I'm very curious as to what services they have in mind.

  12. #762
    Elite Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,537
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    I like how you're accusing me of making a lot of guesses when you don't have a trend to prove that. OK lol. Go ahead, please provide how you've come to that conclusion.
    I'm a network administrator with well over 100 workstations and every Microsoft OS ever made at my disposal.

    Anyone who actually works with computers for a living can easily tell you that the OS minimum requirement is NOT just for the OS, it's the requirement for the OS plus Windows based applications.

    GAMES are the only thing that require more memory than the bare minimum to run, and even most games will run using just the bare minimum, they just run poorly.



    Yes, I don't have WP8 and I can't confirm that but I'm speaking from experience on various OS that I have tried in the past.
    I do not believe you. Not at all. Not even a little bit.


    Here is Windows 8 running on a 900MHZ Intel Celeron processor with 512MB of RAM.




    That shows what you know.

    Would you like me to show you Vista or XP running on an Intel Celeron 433 with 256MB RAM?



    You don't know what you're talking about. As usual, you're just making stuff up and pretending like you have a clue. I hope for your sake you don't actually believe the BS you make up, because if you do then you need some serious professional help.

  13. #763
    Administrator
    Brandon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    14,969
    Rep Power
    811
    Quote Originally Posted by Completely Average View Post
    I'm a network administrator with well over 100 workstations and every Microsoft OS ever made at my disposal.

    Anyone who actually works with computers for a living can easily tell you that the OS minimum requirement is NOT just for the OS, it's the requirement for the OS plus Windows based applications.

    GAMES are the only thing that require more memory than the bare minimum to run, and even most games will run using just the bare minimum, they just run poorly.





    I do not believe you. Not at all. Not even a little bit.


    Here is Windows 8 running on a 900MHZ Intel Celeron processor with 512MB of RAM.




    That shows what you know.

    Would you like me to show you Vista or XP running on an Intel Celeron 433 with 256MB RAM?



    You don't know what you're talking about. As usual, you're just making stuff up and pretending like you have a clue. I hope for your sake you don't actually believe the BS you make up, because if you do then you need some serious professional help.
    Windows 7 runs pretty well on older hardware as well (obviously not like XP). Windows Vista sucked on any range of hardware. >_>

  14. #764
    Elite Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,537
    Rep Power
    61
    How about Vista running on 256MB RAM?

    That's half of the minimum requirements.





    Think that's impressive?

    How about Windows 7 on a 167MHZ CPU with 128MB RAM?





    So can we dispense with the bullcrap claim that Windows minimum requirements are for the OS without applications? Windows itself can run on systems that are less than half the minimum requirements. It's not fast, but it does run, so obviously the OS isn't using everything just for the OS. Windows has a reserve for multitasking applications built into the minimum requirements.
    Last edited by Completely Average; 03-21-2013 at 22:31.

  15. #765
    Administrator
    Brandon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    14,969
    Rep Power
    811
    Why are you showing Windows XP? It's been out for 13 years. Of course it runs on old hardware. Windows 95 can run on 4 MB of RAM.

  16. #766
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    35
    Posts
    34,262
    Rep Power
    222
    Quote Originally Posted by Completely Average View Post
    I'm a network administrator with well over 100 workstations and every Microsoft OS ever made at my disposal.

    Anyone who actually works with computers for a living can easily tell you that the OS minimum requirement is NOT just for the OS, it's the requirement for the OS plus Windows based applications.

    GAMES are the only thing that require more memory than the bare minimum to run, and even most games will run using just the bare minimum, they just run poorly.





    I do not believe you. Not at all. Not even a little bit.


    Here is Windows 8 running on a 900MHZ Intel Celeron processor with 512MB of RAM.




    That shows what you know.

    Would you like me to show you Vista or XP running on an Intel Celeron 433 with 256MB RAM?



    You don't know what you're talking about. As usual, you're just making stuff up and pretending like you have a clue. I hope for your sake you don't actually believe the BS you make up, because if you do then you need some serious professional help.
    Quote Originally Posted by Completely Average View Post
    How about Vista running on 256MB RAM?

    That's half of the minimum requirements.





    Think that's impressive?

    How about Windows 7 on a 167MHZ CPU with 128MB RAM?





    So can we dispense with the bullcrap claim that Windows minimum requirements are for the OS without applications? Windows itself can run on systems that are less than half the minimum requirements. It's not fast, but it does run, so obviously the OS isn't using everything just for the OS. Windows has a reserve for multitasking applications built into the minimum requirements.
    Do you realize those videos prove my point more than yours? None of them ran anything more than notepad/task manager or tweaking the settings.

    When did I say that the entire OS takes up minimum RAM? In fact, I mentioned that it reserves it for caching for more than half the gig.

    Again, you like to throw baseless rhetorics at people but don't understand things yourself.

    It's not a surprise that you can run all that at very low RAM, I mentioned myself that there are 6MB OSs out there, you can pretty much run any Linux OS on a 256MB RAM PC. Big whoop lol. That's not the point.

    The point is how usable is that computer after you get on that OS. Minimum means that it will use most of that for cache...without cache you'll run into slow performance.

    BS, games aren't the only thing that up more than the minimum, otherwise I would not have taken Windows 7 off my 1GB netbook. We would need to restart that damn thing every other day just so we would get a little more free RAM.

    The computers you posted would chug after running an internet browser, much less a flash-based video. You want it to be able to do general purpose things or it's useless to show that it can run on whatever RAM that it can.

    Another thing, I (for the life of me) cannot understand why you take everything so personal lol. Would you calm down for a second, who killed your farm animals, was it me? I'm so sorry, I didn't mean to!

    Do you always have to resort to personal attacks? You say I need professional help?
    Last edited by Omar; 03-21-2013 at 23:34.

  17. Likes DeRaddyoMoFo likes this post
  18. #767
    Forum Sage
    The Sith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    7,526
    Rep Power
    98
    @Mynd! What are Venus Soc. Could they have four cores that are dual threaded operating at 1.2x2 GPU.

    uuummmmm...Fried Beer iis a reality.

  19. #768
    Forum Sage

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Age
    31
    Posts
    8,571
    Rep Power
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by Completely Average View Post
    I'm a network administrator with well over 100 workstations and every Microsoft OS ever made at my disposal.

    Anyone who actually works with computers for a living can easily tell you that the OS minimum requirement is NOT just for the OS, it's the requirement for the OS plus Windows based applications.

    GAMES are the only thing that require more memory than the bare minimum to run, and even most games will run using just the bare minimum, they just run poorly.





    I do not believe you. Not at all. Not even a little bit.


    Here is Windows 8 running on a 900MHZ Intel Celeron processor with 512MB of RAM.




    That shows what you know.

    Would you like me to show you Vista or XP running on an Intel Celeron 433 with 256MB RAM?



    You don't know what you're talking about. As usual, you're just making stuff up and pretending like you have a clue. I hope for your sake you don't actually believe the BS you make up, because if you do then you need some serious professional help.
    You're proving his point.

    The video that you showed is of Windows 8 with a fresh install minus a lot of applications that a normal user would be running.

    Try using the computer you posted daily for normal use (even if if you don't use it for gaming) and you'll start agreeing with Sufi.

  20. #769
    Counting Mod
    PS4freak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    PSN ID
    lsutigers19
    Age
    29
    Posts
    17,355
    Rep Power
    179
    Lol I think that W8 has derailed this thread more than the PS4 ever did.


  21. #770
    Forum Sage

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Age
    31
    Posts
    8,571
    Rep Power
    120
    Derailed?

    The discussion is relevant because it's very likely that Windows 8 or a modified version of Windows 8 may be used on the next Xbox.

    That's what started the discussion to begin with...

  22. #771
    Counting Mod
    PS4freak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    PSN ID
    lsutigers19
    Age
    29
    Posts
    17,355
    Rep Power
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by sainraja View Post
    Derailed?

    The discussion is relevant because it's very likely that Windows 8 or a modified version of Windows 8 may be used on the next Xbox.

    That's what started the discussion to begin with...
    Derailed may Be strong word but hey. It's more about how much ram W8 requires to run. Not like the Xbox will have any problem running it. Continue on I'll stay out of it.


  23. #772
    Administrator
    Brandon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    14,969
    Rep Power
    811
    LOL @ the Vista video. Have you ever used Vista? Good lord.

    I have no doubt the next Xbox will be efficient just like the 360 is.

  24. #773
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    35
    Posts
    34,262
    Rep Power
    222
    I have no doubt the next Xbox will be "more" efficient than the 360. It's only a natural progression.

  25. #774
    Administrator
    Brandon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    14,969
    Rep Power
    811
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    I have no doubt the next Xbox will be "more" efficient than the 360. It's only a natural progression.
    Of course. :]

  26. #775
    Counting Mod
    PS4freak's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    PSN ID
    lsutigers19
    Age
    29
    Posts
    17,355
    Rep Power
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    I have no doubt the next Xbox will be "more" efficient than the 360. It's only a natural progression.
    Naturally.


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts