From: Troy Sicling
My computer is only 1yr old, but I feel the graphics should look better, and sl should load alot faster
I agree with Jonvic. While your computer isn't exactly state of the art, the specs you listed are quite good. Your machine should be able to run SL well, relatively speaking. Keep in mind, SL doesn't run incredibly fast or totally stably on ANYTHING. Even those with ultra high end gaming rigs complain about low FPS in SL.
And as for SL's looks, well, not all of that is the software's fault. Some of it is, but not all.
A big part of the issue on both fronts is the fact that all the content in SL is user created. Most users don't know (and some simply don't care) about optimization. They'll do ridiculous things like slap a unique 1024x1024 texture on every pebble in their rock garden, and then blame the software for their single-digit FPS. Some people just refuse to accept that this stuff doesn't run on magic. Their feeling is "If I want to be able to do ______, I should be able to, and that's that." Never mind if "_____" is technically feasible.
Because of such abuses, the average scene in SL will often have hundreds of megabytes, sometimes even gigabytes or tens of gigabytes, worth of textures on display, while the average video card can only process maybe a quarter or half of one gigabyte at a time. Even the highest capacity video cards available only have a 1-2 gigabytes of VRAM. There's just no way 10GB worth of textures, plus all the geometry, lights, and everything else, can be drawn at speed.
Combine that with the other issues Jonvic mentioned, such as network bottlenecks, and things slow down even further. SL never has been, and likely never will be, a high speed platform. It's good at a lot of things, but speed isn't one of them.
That's, of course, not to say that you shouldn't be concerned about improving your machine. Just be aware that even if you turn it into the best computer in the world, you'll still have some issues in SL. There's no way around that.
If I had to pinpoint a few areas for improvement with your system, here's where I'd start:
1. The GeForce 8500 is a solid midrange graphics card, but it's not exactly a speed demon. If you want the best possible graphics performance, go with a high end card, not a midrange card. A 9800 would be a significant upgrade, which wouldn't break the bank ($100-150). Or if you want to spend a bit more, something from the GTX200 series would be the current top of the line. 285's and 295's range from $400 to $800.
2. You've got a decent amount of RAM at 3GB, but obviously, the more, the better. I'd suggest upgrading to a 64-bit operating system, so you can use more RAM. Vista Ultimate x64 allows for up to 128GB. I'm currently using it on 3 machines here, one with 8GB, and two with 4GB, and they fly.
From: Gunter Gustav
- Vista (cos XP can't address so much RAM)
That's not accurate. The amount of RAM that can be addressed is not a Vista vs. XP thing. It's a 32-bit vs. 64-bit thing. Both XP and Vista have 32-bit and 64-bit versions. If you get the 32-bit version of either OS, your memory will be limited to a total of 4GB. If you get the 64-bit version of either one, you'll be able to use more.*
Between the two, I recommend Vista x64 over XP x64 for three reasons:
1. XP in general is getting harder and harder to find.
2. The big problem with XP x64 was finding drivers for it, even when it was current. Now that it's so long out of date, the situation is even worse.
3. Vista's memory management is fantastic, far superior to that of XP. If you're going to use so much RAM, you might as well use an OS that can manage it properly.
As I often say, I'm firmly convinced that all the complaints about Vista stem from the 32-bit version. In order to shine, it really needs more resources than most 32-bit systems can throw at it. The 64-bit version is fantastic. While it does have a few minor annoyances, it's hands down the best OS I've ever used.
*A little memory math, if you're curious to know the WHY behind all this:
By definition, all 32-bit operating systems, including the 32-bit versions of Vista and XP, have a hard limit of 4GB of memory. This is because 2^32 memory addresses = 4,294,967,296 possible bytes of memory, or precisely 4GB. That includes system RAM and device memory, combined. Device memory always gets addressed before system RAM, so if you've got a 1GB video card, the maximum amount of usable system RAM will be 3GB.
64-bit operating systems, again by definition, smash that 4GB limit. The mathematical limit is actually over 17 billion gigabytes of memory. Yes, that's billion, with a B. 2^64 addresses = 18,446,744,100,000,000,000 bytes = 17,179,869,184 gigabytes. No OS currently on the market supports anywhere near that much physical memory yet, though. Even if they did, you'd obviously need a whole block of warehouses full of memory sticks just to get close. The limit for most current 64-bit systems is 128GB.
