Commander limit??

[Endoperez]

Zeldor said:
NTJedi:

But that is not the case in Dominions. Turns are not generated faster on a better computer. And that is wrong.

What do you mean? A computer with twice the hertzes probably won't generate the turn in half time, but I'm not sure of the internal requirements. Turn generation takes time because it doesn't have enough of something. It could be CPU power, RAM, some other memory or something else entirely; I don't know what else could be there. But upgrading the hardware will doubtlessly have SOME effect on turn generation.

[Zeldor]

Endoperez:

Only to some degree, unless there is smth wrong with my copy Dominions 3 takes really low % of both CPU [E4300] and RAM [4GB] and I can launch many other aps without slowig turn generation.

[NTJedi]

Zeldor said:
Endoperez:

Only to some degree, unless there is smth wrong with my copy Dominions 3 takes really low % of both CPU [E4300] and RAM [4GB] and I can launch many other aps without slowig turn generation.

You must be playing either small maps or in the early stages of a game. I have multiple systems(some very powerful) and have always seen the CPU is MAXED OUT during AI Thinking of a turn. The RAM rarely gets any attention, however anyone who has played large maps with LA ERMOR and LA Ry'leh will see very high CPU usage during AI Thinking. The AI Thinking is also the longest part of a turn for large maps with powerful AIs.

I have seen turns generate faster on faster systems.

[Loren]

Zeldor said:
Endoperez:

Only to some degree, unless there is smth wrong with my copy Dominions 3 takes really low % of both CPU [E4300] and RAM [4GB] and I can launch many other aps without slowig turn generation.

Strange.

I'll agree it doesn't need that much memory. I'm running about 140mb for the game currently generating. What really ties up memory is graphics, Dominions doesn't have a lot of them.

CPU, though--the usage has stuck at 25% almost all the time during this turn. Since this is a Q6600 that means it's saturating it's core.

[Zeldor]

Loren:

Oh, I forgot that it doesn't use more than 1 core. But still my CPU usage was way too small. Maybe it's because of Vista. I really need to install Linux soon.

[NTJedi]

Zeldor said:
Loren:

Oh, I forgot that it doesn't use more than 1 core. But still my CPU usage was way too small. Maybe it's because of Vista. I really need to install Linux soon.

Yes Vista will move CPU usage out from one application to others so all will run with better performance. Within Win2000 and WinXP one application/process can max out CPU usage.

I recommend having a dual or triple boot environment.

[Edratman]

Going a bit off topic, but Vista has been brought up so I'm only sinning slightly(?). My home computer (3 to 4 years old) is in a coma at the moment. My better half made me throw all my old computers away about 2 months ago, so my stock of spare parts for a "switch-and-see-if-it fixes-it" solution is non-existant. Thus I have to take it in for repairs.

I'm going to set some dollar limit on the repairs, with Plan B being a replacement computer. All the new computers come with Vista, of which I have yet to hear anything of significence that is good.

My question, do I dump the Vista operating system and install Windows 2000 or some other Windows. I'm not willing or able to spend time to learn Linux, besides, I just play games and do e-mail and Web stuff on my home compter. I do own a Windows 2000 Professional CD.

[Zeldor]

Vista is not so bad as many people descrive it. It is just bad. Like every other Windows. It has many extremely stupid solutions and a lot depends on your luck. Windows 2k is much worse solution now. You should stick to XP if you hav it, but take Vista when you are buying new OS. And learning Linux is not so hard if you take good distribution [kubuntu].

[NTJedi]

Edratman said:
My question, do I dump the Vista operating system and install Windows 2000 or some other Windows. I'm not willing or able to spend time to learn Linux, besides, I just play games and do e-mail and Web stuff on my home compter. I do own a Windows 2000 Professional CD.

I advise dual booting or triple booting your operating systems. There are multiple advantages for a system with this setup.
First if one OS gets a corrupted registry, virus, corrupted file, etc... it's easy to boot into another OS finish important work/games then fix the busted OS at your convenience.
Second a multi-boot environment makes it easier to fix a busted OS.
Third one type of OS might have better performance and/or game stability for some games than another type of OS.
Fourth if a problem occurs it's easy to discover if it's a hardware problem or software problem with a multi_boot setup simply by booting into another OS. A single OS will not provide this benefit.
Fifth is some older games will not work on Vista and some games in the future may only work on Vista... especially those published by Microsoft.