mmx support

mike435 · Post by **mike435** » Sat Jan 22, 2005 10:14 pm

how come it seems when i use any of the mmx support thing ( super sai, super eagle etc...) its seems that the game gets less smooth anyone know how i can fix that?

ThunderClaw · Post by **ThunderClaw** » Sat Jan 22, 2005 10:14 pm

mike435 wrote:how come it seems when i use any of the mmx support thing ( super sai, super eagle etc...) its seems that the game gets less smooth anyone know how i can fix that?

Mind posting your system specs?

mike435 · Post by **mike435** » Sat Jan 22, 2005 10:19 pm

ThunderClaw wrote:
mike435 wrote:how come it seems when i use any of the mmx support thing ( super sai, super eagle etc...) its seems that the game gets less smooth anyone know how i can fix that?
Mind posting your system specs?

what do you mean?

Kriegan · Post by **Kriegan** » Sat Jan 22, 2005 10:22 pm

he means Cpu Type\speed, OS, Ram. That stuff

mike435 · Post by **mike435** » Sat Jan 22, 2005 10:33 pm

oh ok
cpu: gateway
operatiing system: win xp
ram: 128 mb of ram
video card: ati rage v128

Post by **Agozer** » Sat Jan 22, 2005 10:42 pm

mike435 wrote:how come it seems when i use any of the mmx support thing ( super sai, super eagle etc...) its seems that the game gets less smooth anyone know how i can fix that?

You know, your computers speed would be nice to know. It looks like your computer is too slow to handled those advanced filters. Try plain Interpolation.

Magus` · Post by **Magus`** » Sat Jan 22, 2005 10:49 pm

Gatewat? WTF. I assume you mean Gateway, and they don't make CPUs.

mike435 · Post by **mike435** » Sat Jan 22, 2005 10:50 pm

i would you know my computer is too slow?

mike435 · Post by **mike435** » Sat Jan 22, 2005 10:54 pm

Magus` wrote:Gatewat? WTF. I assume you mean Gateway, and they don't make CPUs.

well DUH it was a typo it is gateway i meant to put if you see it looks close to gate way and a "t: is right next to a"y"

Deathlike2 · Post by **Deathlike2** » Sat Jan 22, 2005 11:21 pm

i would you know my computer is too slow?

You meant "How would you know my computer is too slow?"..

Well, you are running XP with 128MB of RAM (which is not a great idea, since XP needs AT LEAST 512MB to run well)...

When they are asking for the speed of your comp, they are looking for the brand of CPU (AMD or Intel) and the speed (800MHz for example)...

Looking at the amount of RAM in your comp, it's probably not fast (compared to today's standards anyways) and not even good for XP (it is not ideal at all). Heck, XP is probably draining most of your system's performance (making ZSNES and other apps/games sluggish). I'm trying to figure out how anyone can get through XP with only 128MB of RAM... (having more RAM should definately help XP, and ZSNES as well)...

Also, your video card is... at LEAST 5 years old and although it may help run ZSNES ok... but it's very outdated.

ThunderClaw · Post by **ThunderClaw** » Sat Jan 22, 2005 11:38 pm

Deathlike2 wrote:Well, you are running XP with 128MB of RAM (which is not a great idea, since XP needs AT LEAST 512MB to run well)...

False. I installed a slimmed down, leaner version of Win XP Pro on a K6-2, 333Mhz, 64MB RAM, and it worked fine. It's all about knowing how to manage your shit.

Looking at the amount of RAM in your comp, it's probably not fast (compared to today's standards anyways) and not even good for XP (it is not ideal at all).

RAM has almost nothing to do with advanced video overlays.

Heck, XP is probably draining most of your system's performance (making ZSNES and other apps/games sluggish). I'm trying to figure out how anyone can get through XP with only 128MB of RAM... (having more RAM should definately help XP, and ZSNES as well)...

He said quite clearly that ZSNES with no graphical overlays functions just fine. And once again, XP runs just fine on 128MB RAM. Believe it or not, when it came out, 256MB was considered a lot. Holy shit.

Also, your video card is... at LEAST 5 years old and although it may help run ZSNES ok... but it's very outdated.

You're finally getting to something that might help.

Make sure your video card drivers are up-to-date. Your current video hardware is definately not enough to support the higher-end video options. Depending on your CPU, you might have trouble with even the more basic ones, too.

michael flatley · Post by **michael flatley** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 1:35 am

If you think even a slimmed down, tweaked to the absolute maximum winxp "works fine" with even 128MB RAM then you must also enjoy a bikeride to work... Why are so many members of this board die-hard supporters of extremely slow computers? I truly don't want to try and start an argument but what country do you people live in? The slowest computer I've ever seen a friend/relative/coworker/neighbor have is a 1.5GHz Pentium with equivalent hardware. I laughed at them.

Sorry, just thought I'd say something. Recommending winxp with less than 512MB (256MB MINIMUM) is just insanity.

Oblivion · Post by **Oblivion** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 1:49 am

Thunderclaw lives in the United States of America.

Post by **grinvader** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 1:50 am

Thank you for not helping, flatley.

@mike435: don't use any filters. Don't disable MMX support in the options. Don't touch the default config at all actually, except for inputs.

ThunderClaw · Post by **ThunderClaw** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 4:36 am

Hey Flatley, would you like me to take a stopwatch to the bootup?

I'd like to point you to Microsoft's own WinXP Pro system requirements.

PC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed recommended; 233 MHz minimum required (single or dual processor system);* Intel Pentium/Celeron family, or AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible processor recommended

128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)

1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space*

Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and monitor

CD-ROM or DVD drive

Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device

Source

Note: 128MB RAM is RECOMMENDED. Using your resources correctly makes it entirely possible to use it at lower specs. Also note that it's 300MHz RECOMMENDED. I believe Soul has gotten WinXP working on a 166Mhz machine.

I merely meant to correct a technical falsehood. Don't you go trying to propogate it again, reality is against you.

So, in short, your bloated ePenis prefrences are once again pointless with respects to sane reality and completely irrelevant with relation to this topic. HA HA, JOKE YOU ARE.

soulmata · Post by **soulmata** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 4:50 am

michael flatley wrote:If you think even a slimmed down, tweaked to the absolute maximum winxp "works fine" with even 128MB RAM then you must also enjoy a bikeride to work... Why are so many members of this board die-hard supporters of extremely slow computers? I truly don't want to try and start an argument but what country do you people live in? The slowest computer I've ever seen a friend/relative/coworker/neighbor have is a 1.5GHz Pentium with equivalent hardware. I laughed at them.

Sorry, just thought I'd say something. Recommending winxp with less than 512MB (256MB MINIMUM) is just insanity.

Remember that time when you were "completely fucking wrong" ?

The minimum required for windowsXP is 64mb.

A standard office config PC works wonderfully with XP and 128mb.

256mb is the point at which ~90% of user end software will run superbly without a performance hit due to swapping.

I have built over 1,500 computers in the year as a service technician. I have repaired close to 300. I live in oregons second largest city. And more than half[ of those repairs were of machines using 256mb of ram or less, with a 1.2ghz cpu or less.

You're a moron, don't speak.

Noxious Ninja · Post by **Noxious Ninja** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 4:53 am

ThunderClaw wrote:I believe Soul has gotten WinXP working on a 166Mhz machine.

I've seen XP running on a P90 with 96 MB RAM. It was slow, but useable.

soulmata · Post by **soulmata** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 4:59 am

I ran XP originally on a Pentium 75 with 96mb of ram.

ThunderClaw · Post by **ThunderClaw** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 5:05 am

Oh, right, there's also PC100/PC133 mobos and RAM, in as low as 32MB denominations, plus dozens of processors at well under 1.0Ghz, widely available at trusted street pricers like Pricewatch. Guess there's still perfectly legitimate uses for your so-called 'ancient' hardware! Check that out!

Clements · Post by **Clements** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 5:22 am

I ran XP on 56MB RAM (8MB was dedicated to graphics) and it was slow with major swapfile usage, but was still useable for me. I prefered that to the faster Win98 since XP was at least rock stable and reliable.

With 256MB, I could run almost anything with no swapfile usage even when loading up large N64 roms. More than enough for general use.

In the UK, PC parts are very expensive (1.5x to 2x US prices), as they are in a lot of the world, so not everyone can afford to have a fast system, nor do they have need of such a system, when an older system can do the job.

If you even look in the PC Specs thread in Tech Talk, most of the board have around two systems, a fast one and a slower one, so we still use the older systems.

snkcube · Post by **snkcube** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 5:22 am

michael flatley wrote:If you think even a slimmed down, tweaked to the absolute maximum winxp "works fine" with even 128MB RAM then you must also enjoy a bikeride to work... Why are so many members of this board die-hard supporters of extremely slow computers? I truly don't want to try and start an argument but what country do you people live in? The slowest computer I've ever seen a friend/relative/coworker/neighbor have is a 1.5GHz Pentium with equivalent hardware. I laughed at them.

Sorry, just thought I'd say something. Recommending winxp with less than 512MB (256MB MINIMUM) is just insanity.

I'm running on a 1.5 Ghz P4 so "STFU".

Lizking · Post by **Lizking** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 5:37 am

michael flatley wrote:If you think even a slimmed down, tweaked to the absolute maximum winxp "works fine" with even 128MB RAM then you must also enjoy a bikeride to work... Why are so many members of this board die-hard supporters of extremely slow computers? I truly don't want to try and start an argument but what country do you people live in? The slowest computer I've ever seen a friend/relative/coworker/neighbor have is a 1.5GHz Pentium with equivalent hardware. I laughed at them.

Sorry, just thought I'd say something. Recommending winxp with less than 512MB (256MB MINIMUM) is just insanity.

If you've never seen someone running anything below a 1.5Ghz machine, you must not have been around very long. Until 2000, I was using a 286 with an amber screen and DOS. Since 2000, I've been running an AMD TBird @ 800Mhz.
It is capable of all of the following:
1) Running just about any game made for Windows released up until the middle of 2004
2) Emulating any console before the Dreamcast at full speed or damned close
3) Whatever else I want it to

You lose.

Bent · Post by **Bent** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:14 am

Since the point has been pretty much beaten to death, I will only add that I am running a 1GHz Athlon. Up until the past two games I've tried on it, it ran everything without a problem. Would I love a new computer? You bet. But I don't see any reason to rush since this one runs everything I throw at it.

Aerdan · Post by **Aerdan** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 7:09 am

Up until around Sep 2001, I was using a 150MHz machine with 64MB RAM. It was adequate for the things I did at that time.

Post by **Agozer** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 11:44 am

Hell, up until around 6 months ago, I was using a Pentium 200MHz with 32MB RAM and funky DirectX support. I was quite content with it, although I missed quite a bit in terms of emulation.

ZSNES board

mmx support

mmx support

Re: mmx support

Re: mmx support

Re: mmx support