Quote from The Moose :

Quote from hazaky :

Vista 32bit, FF 3.6.3 - no issues at all.

Win 7 64 bit...never had an issue either.

See post #8 in http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=20925 from March.
He uses win 7 64 bit, I use vista 64, he doesn't seem to have solved it, but don't want to post there as it's a couple months old. He also uses hybernation/sleep that I also use, and I typically have 30+ tabs open plus a few youtube/flash ones, so perhaps there are some circumstances under which this happens, maybe flash related or graphics drivers etc, but in my case with so many tabs etc, it happens every single time, no exceptions. It's OK now since I only have to restore FF from task bar, but was highly annoying until I figured that out...

Quote from senn :

the problem i find with the RAC, is that it doesn't turn in well under braking (weight transfer to front)

It can turn well if you use LSD (or at least used to). I remember it could be quite fun to trail-brake in some longer turns (say T1 at We rev), once you start it had some resemblance to 8s of rodeo when the bull is let loose...

I like RAC, but I've mostly done a couple hotlaps here and there, very rare to find a chance to race it online. The whole LRF class is the hardest to race and hence the least popular, and while FZ5 has some uses on faster tracks, LX6 dominates RAC everywhere, so I guess that's why RAC is more than 2x less popular than the next least popular car (FZ 50)...

I've been using FF since 90s, the only extension I use is AdBlock, and at work and I don't even use that and don't miss it much either. Really don't care for the extensions, just want it simple...
I've tried Opera some time ago and hated it. I tried Chrome recently and was meh, I'm just used to FF, and don't like Chrome's look and feel.

That said, I'm getting annoyed with FF 3.6. There's a thread in the Bugs-Program forum about LFS minimization and this is totally FF's fault: whoever has Vista (not sure if Win 7 is the same) can reproduce it. Just open FF and minimize it. That's it, run LFS in fullscreen mode and it will get auto switched to window mode. Restore FF or close it and everything works fine. What the heck?? And this happens with some other games, has been reported to devs as early as Jan/Feb and despite this being a fairly serious bug (interfering with other apps, wtf), nothing has been done. Another thing is that youtube videos sometimes start skipping every 10s - turned out to be related to FF saving tabs every 10s (can be modified in about:config). A developer who does periodic I/O blocking on a GUI thread playing media should be insta-fired, luckily for him/her/them it's open source... 3.6.3 has been crashing like 2-3 times a week for me too, and there are some other smaller bugs I've noticed.

Anyway, enough of the rant, I'm still using FF hoping they will fix these bugs, if not, I think I'll be switching to something else, IE8 or Chrome (despite Google becoming too nosy)...

Quote from Shotglass :

4% is a very high inflation rate
66% is a ridiculous inflation rate
illepall

So you think S3 will come out next year?
4% over 13 years is ~66%, and S2 price was set 5 years ago already...

Quote from Gener_AL (UK) :

Indeed joining now.
btw was racing here last night/morning and had this race (replay).

Did LFS get this wrong ... I am pretty sure i came 1st
Nice racing autopilot/spikee

nah, my win, fair and square
hehe, I checked my replay too thinking maybe I was lagging on yours, but it also looks like you should have won. I know I was thinking darn, I lost it, I should have picked up more speed from drafting, instead of being afraid spikee's gonna close the inside in that slight turn before the finish. you two went really wide there

I guess it's because we have the same time, so LFS uses some random criteria to decide who's first, maybe my packets came to the host first after finish line or something. It looks like LFS should be smarter and use track location/interpolation or something, I mean, if it can render it properly, then it should be able to use the same info for the race standings...

Anyway, was a great finish

great fun, really addictive
need to stop playing...

Quote from MarcG :

Shit I spoiled the party..I accidently found some old replay

No, no, that's the spirit, we should all gang up on him

What you have is DDR400, MB (and OS) shows it as 200 MHz, because that's the real memory clock. There are no 200 and 400 MHz versions of PC3200. You should still try to use the same kind of module (e.g. latencies may differ etc.), but it's not a big deal...

yeah, it's a well known thing due to well known reasons. however that same article talks about TRIM which eliminates this issue. i think i'm only about one generation before i buy one, price per GB is still fairly high, even though with TRIM I'd say it's worth it...

Quote from JJ72 :

cos they now eat cow and chickens.....just like all of us.

F*** you coelacanth! :evil:

Quote from gezmoor :

No it's not fixed by SP1/SP2. Improved I agree, but not fixed. Vista still sits and waits for a long time before it starts it's copying compared to XP. The larger the file or the more files you're trying to move/copy the worse the lag is while it sits there "calculating".

Seeing as you're so fond of quoting figures, do you know exactly how the benchmarks were carried out? As someone with a scientifc/engineering background myself I am very aware of the significance of testing methodology on determining results. Having not seen the tests I won't argue with the figures you're quoting, but I must say that the majority of benchmark testing articles I've ever seen are very good at reproducing pages and pages of numbers, and describing the test "environment", but tend to fall down quite significantly on explaining in detail the exact method used to carry out the tests.

A proper and rigourous test paper would consist of significant amounts of detail describing the exact methodology of the testing. Usually significantly more of the paper is given to the methodology than the actual results themselves. Almost the complete opposite to what is usually seen in most computer magazine/website "evaluations".

Starting to copy files was always faster on my Vista home desktop than at work where I have XP. Of course, my PC at home is siginificantly faster in every way, so it's far from a fair comparison, but still, I did not experience this. Perhaps a problem with your system?

As for the testing, I have trust in some of the sites like anandtech as I've been following them for quite some time, and they do sometimes go at length to describe their methodology and it's fundamentally sound. Of course there can be flaws, but I'm not sure how many things can go wrong in measuring how long it takes to copy something. And many sites report the same results.

Yes, it's nice when new OS-es run nicely on old systems. But I think it's reasonable to expect that it will make use of more resources as the hardware improves. Vista came out 5 years after XP. I bought a rig in 2003 with XP and in 2008 with Vista, also 5 years diff. The latter one has 12x more RAM than the first one, is it so bad if Vista uses 2x more RAM than XP? And it's mostly due to the aggressive prefetcher (they just made it less aggressive in Win 7, they could've done it for Vista with a patch...) and I actually appreciate that OS would try to use all the RAM it sees.

I'm not saying Win 7 is not better, it is, but I don't agree it's by a long mile, or as someone had put it "pisses all over Vista"...

I've already said that I agreed UI seems faster, but if you have a newer rig, you likely didn't have issues with stuff like opening menus in Vista.

Quote from gezmoor :

1. Vista lags a lot when you ask it to do almost anything. File copying is a prime example.

That's an old complaint fixed in SP1 or SP2. You can see the benchmarks for file copying, and Win 7 is about 1-2% faster.

Quote from The Moose :

20FPS boost in FSX, one of the most demanding PC titles.

20 fps more in FSX, wow, that's like 150% more, right? :P

Quote from The Moose :

Yet again, real world performance with my own benchmarks that i can see with my own eyes is far more important than a benchmark someone else has run on another machine.

You guys stick to your Vista fantasy.

I believe that talking about quantities like speed and time requires a proper quantitative analysis, which is something at least some of the more reputable tech sites do. And their results are pretty unanimous. And if you follow some of the MS technical blogs/sites, you can find technical reasons why Win 7 is more like Vista SP3 than the best thing since sliced bread.

And, FYI, I preordered Win 7 upgrade back in June when it was half price and received it on Oct 22, i.e. the launch date. I'm sorry if I haven't fallen in love with the new wonder of the world that is Windows 7...

Quote from The Moose :

Quite frankly sir you can stick you benchmarks up your arse

Whats important to me is the real world performance of what i see before me, and the fact of the matter is Windows 7 pisses all over Vista for me in terms of boot speed, overall system snappiness and better, smoother gameplay in all of my games.(and significant FPS boosts in all of them)

You come across as someone who is looking for every excuse not to move on. Believe what you want about 7. I don't know one single person personally that moved on to 7 and not said its a lot better than Vista.

Your loss.

Quote from e2mustang :

dont know what benchmark u looked at,coz win7 even performed 40% better in its beta stage than vista!

Maybe something like this (or any other, really)?
http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=3666

Except for a few obscure benchmarks everything else is within about 1%. And in the 4 games they tested the biggest difference was 1.2 fps. Is that the significant boost you guys are talking about?

So, quite frankly, you can stick your personal, subjective assessment up your arse, if you cannot back it up with anything measurable. If you get significant FPS boost, then you could've most likely achieved the same thing by reinstalling Vista - comparing a fresh 7 install to an old Vista setup isn't fair. UI is snappier, I'll admit that, but that's mostly it.

I already mentioned above - first hexcores will cost $1500+ and it will stay that way for some time. By the time he can upgrade to hexcore for some reasonable price, he will probably want to upgrade his MB too for whatever reason (it might not be compatible e.g., or like USB 3.0 or something). I don't think it should be any kind of a factor right now.
I think the general advice I've seen is: go 1356 if you run CF/SLI and/or if you OC (and not some light OC), otherwise Lynfield. triple channel doesn't seem to do anything...

Microcenter, right? They're the only ones selling i7 920 for $200, but you have to live near one, it's only pickup. and the OP isn't from US...

Quote from aimbottle :

You don't want do give him a call and ask what's REALLY going on?

I'm sure you'd do a lot of people a big favour (including me ) because just waiting without any reliable information is really frustrating.

You actually live a lot closer to him than me
As you can guess from the post above, some guys from Cro TM were in contact with him some time ago, but even they can't help much, the guy just went silent...

Are you confusing i5/i7 instead of sockets 1156/1366 ? Because the only i5 is i5 750 and it won't beat i7 860/870 on the same socket, maybe i7 920 in specific cases because of its very aggressive turbo, and even this advantage pretty much only applies to stock clocks.

I agree with the recommendation though, i5 750 is a better bang for the buck than i7s, hands-down.

Septembar is Serbo-Croatian for September, so probably just a typo.
Just a remark, don't know anything about the seat and availability...

Quote from harjun :

hmm interesting
Also heard that the new i9 chip is coming out soon anyway
Cheers

Those will be 6-core CPUs, so even less useful for most games. On top of that, they will only come in Extreme editions, probably $1500+

Actually there are more like that. E.g. SO classic rev / XRT by [d9]. The date is 15-06-2009, only 1 day diff compared to hugoluis. I'm guessing there were problems around those dates and there are probably more of them...

Quote from harjun :

Hi feel that the new i7 can be about 5 times better and also overclock higher with lower voltages thus temperatures. PC is also getting a bit out dated after 2 years.

Depends on the use. For multithreaded encoding type of stuff, yes, for games, not so much. I ran that LFS benchmark and clock for clock it's about the same as C2D E8XXX if not even slightly slower, so going from e2180 to i7 will mean next to nothing. i7s seem to pay off if you're using SLI/CF.

Quote from harjun :

do you think it would be sensible to pay £110 for 6Gb DDR3 tri channel or just buy a simple 4gb setup for less than half that price.

2x2GB DDR3 setup is more than half the price of 3x2 GB? Something's wrong with those prices. I'd generally recommend tri-channel only because of more RAM, tri vs dual means next to nothing in practice.

Quote from harjun :

Also, would it be a lot more expensive to get an SLI compatible motherboard because was also thinking of getting a cheap 2nd hand 8800GTS 640mb BFG OC at a later date and run in SLI.

No, any X58 will do, they all have SLI afaik. 3-way SLi on the other hand may be more expensive.

Quote from harjun :

And one final question, will my corsair 520W PSU be able to power this, (8800GTS (maybe SLI) and the i7 etc.)

Yes. Though it depends how crazy you plan to go with OC-ing, like if you're gonna go water again...
Also, I'm not sure why are you selling the case too.

Quote from GianniC :

How about stop nitpicking and trying to get yourself an internet discussion going ?

I'm trying to explain to you that your argument does not stand for the majority of North Americans from a point of someone who is directly affected by that. That's all, I'm not nitpicking nor trying to start a debate, no need to get so defensive...