Tamper

*lol* I knew it!! But, geez, it took over 12 hours before the inevitable 120" screen came along. What's become of the Internet? (Very nice screen, though I didn't post a pic because I still have quite a lot of work to do *sigh* It's been over a year in the making; there was nothing there when I started except the studs and joists) UKW...*lmao* now *that's* the spirit!!

OK, well, I see this deteriorated rapidly into "mine's bigger than yours"...I didn't want to have to do it, but I suppose I'm obligated: I'm finishing my basement currently; by about Christmas, I'll be done. Drywall is done, primer coat is on. Acoustic ceiling, done. Brand-new 7.1 surround system, check. Custom theater reclining seats, check. 720P HD DLP projector, got it... ...but, because this is all about 'my monitor is bigger than yours'...the 100" motorized screen is already hung. I'll be seated about 10' away from it, with a wireless HID setup. So there. Now, will I play OFF on it? Probably, at least as a test...but the PC connected to the theater setup is more for browsing, etc., not necessarily a gaming machine (built to be small and quiet, not necessarily fast). It's not about the PC, anyway; this is primarily all for movies. Do I think for a moment that the image will be as good as what I see on the 19" Viewsonic my OFF machine has? Nope. Not because it's not HD (it is; just not full HD), but for the very same reason I mentioned above. My little 19" monitor has more pixels, in a much smaller area - therefore guaranteed a better, sharper, clearer picture. I don't care what kind of scaling technology a given TV uses to cover pixel count mismatch or upsizing a minimal base pixel count, it's still scaling - the bane of the big-screen world. Like I said, unless you have a whole number multiple of 720 or 1080 pixels horizontally, your display is scaling, somehow. Oh, and that 3840x2160 resolution I mentioned above (the 'first-order' multiple of full HD)? Well, it's actually called "Quad Full HD" (since being twice the pixels in both directions means you can display 4 full HD pictures all at once). Sony makes one...56" for a mere $77,000.00; others are beginning to appear as well, in the $50-70K range. Seems at least some manufacturers understand what scaling is, why it's nasty, why big screens at relatively low pixel counts are an issue, and the complications involved in getting it right. All the best, gentlemen.

I think Siggi makes a point. PC monitors express resolution in a number of horizontal pixels (by) a number of vertical pixels. My 19" widescreen monitor, for instance, is 1440x900. (Oddly enough, PC monitors sometimes are 16:10 aspect ratio, where widescreen TVs are always 16:9). The important number to consider is the smaller of the two - the horizontal pixels. This will tell you whether an LCD panel is HD capable. (I'm only considering 'native' resolutions here, which all LCDs have - native being that the resolution number is equal to the number of actual pixels; otherwise, the image must be 'scaled', which involves displaying parts of pixels on each pixel, and isn't very good looking). HDTVs, even for "full HD" (1080P) feature native panel resolutions of 1920x1080. (720P=1280x720). So, even on an HDTV, you're not getting a great deal more pixels than your 1280x1024 19" monitor. And those pixels, rather than being spread out over a screen roughly 16"x10" (19" widescreen) are now spread out over something that is much larger depending on how big a TV you use (for a 32", it's roughly 28"x16"). So, each pixel is much bigger (and/or, to a much lesser extent, the spacing between pixels might increase). Which is all fine and dandy if you're sitting across your living room - but not necessarily when you're parked 2 feet from the screen. It might help to think of big screen TVs as monitors that are designed to be shared by a room full of people, not so much to make a really big screen for 1 person. I've read a lot of internet 'chest pounding' about how this guy has a 32" TV for a monitor...followed by the guy who has a 42" monitor...and so on. But I think that's all it is - "Mine's bigger than yours". The only way I can imagine it would work out well is to have some whole multiple of the base number in pixels (say, twice the pixels - on a 1080P TV, that would be 3840x2160. A whole multiple would allow same resolution without 'scaling'...and although I admit not having looked into it at all, I can't imagine what a TV with that number of pixels would cost. Maybe a good idea to borrow a TV and hook it up before you commit to buying anything. I hope this helps.

I agree - and it is indeed a testimonial to the efforts and talent of the OBD team. I hope I'm not imagining things, but I've also noticed a big difference in overall smoothness (hard to quantify or measure, but definitely something I can distinguish). In fact, like you, I was able to increase my settings to 5-4-4-3-3 and it still runs fairly smooth, even with 10 AC in a furball. I go back to the original OFF P1. Looking back, the improvements over time have been absolutely remarkable. I can't wait to see HITR, and/or P4. Whatever limitations I used to doubt would ever change, seem to be vanishing as we go. Definitely has become the best gaming purchase I've made in a long while.

Yeah, I have to take serious exception as well, Bullethead. I wouldn't take Vista if you gave it to me. And I am neither unable to afford it (I actually bought a copy), nor did I build a new system around an old drive's "inability to maximize performace" (give us a little credit...doing that would be stupid). I run XP because in my (educated and experienced) opinion, it's just better, period. And this place is not (by far - and I do mean far) the only online forum that features 'hold-outs' for XP. I know at least as many people who elected to skip Vista altogether, as I do those who (forgive me) fell for it. Like many others, I will be running XP until at least SP1 for W7 is released, and (possibly) as was mentioned above, until the first 'big game' comes along that just won't run on it. (and yes, I did precisely the same thing with XP, while running 98SE quite happily).

:) I doubt anything we know of today will be the "final solution" in terms of technology!! Yes, SSD's are still in their infancy, relatively speaking. But the second-gen devices now have far better 'wear-leveling algorithms', so much of the performance deterioration and longevity you refer to have been overcome (although unless the basic technology changes, there will always be a limited number of read-writes on an SSD, and therefore, the overhead associated with wear-leveling). RAM is much faster, but the nature of RAM is such that it's 'volatile' - power goes off, memory clears. It basically uses capacitors that can only hold a charge for so long with no power applied. And it's been that way for as long as memory (as we know it today) has existed. So, I don't know that RAM - again, as we know it today - will be practical. Maybe something more like batteries, less like capacitors...? Well, probably not, because batteries also take a lot longer to charge (thus, making 'writes' very slow). Maybe something like a cross between batteries, caps, and junctions that latch...now we're talking... (lol If I could solve that little issue, I'd be buying a real Dr1, not flying one on my PC...)

If I may, I think you meant to say 4G (although I do remember the first machine I ever built, and getting 4M was a 400% upgrade!). What you were told is essentially true. A 32-bit Operating System, by nature of it's design, can only "read" memory up to a certain address range (which is expressed in, you guessed it, 32 bits). This would apply to *any* 32-bit system, so it's not just a "Windows problem". It's not exactly 3G you see, but it won't be 4. It'll fall somewhere around 3.5G, depending on a lot of other technical crap. Still, not a total waste, at least up to 4G. The 64-bit OS, by comparison, can access a far (far) greater address range, so you 'recover' anything beyond that roughly 3.5G. The thing is, and I've actually run both Vista and W7 64-bit versions, at 4G, you're not really gaining that much extra - and the 'overhead' associated with these two newer OS's (in my opinion) outweighs the benefit of the extra 0.5G. If you were to get 8g, it would probably be a different story. But, again in my opinion, RAM still suffers today what it always has - there is an amount, adding up to which is always a great idea...but anything beyond that and you get into 'diminishing returns". I doubt, for instance, a 'typical' desktop machine of today with a 64-bit OS would benefit much from anything beyond 8G - and certainly not in proportion to the added cost. Again, just my $.02

Not at all to hijack the thread here, but this touches on something I've tried (usually, without much success) to explain before: Frame rate numbers by themselves aren't an indication of how "smooth" somthing runs, regardless of how big the FPS number is. It's funny to me to see people going on and on about "I get (insert number bigger than the other guy here) FPS!" All this really boils down to is internet 'chest pounding'. There is a lot of information about stuttering out there; some good and a lot of bad (for instance, one of my old favorites is that SLI causes stuttering...which is absolute balderdash, on an otherwise healthy, properly configured system). But here's a little scientific fact for you: The thing about FPS is this (echoed by the OP's comment "stutters with no apparent loss in fps"): Even at 60+ frames a second, you can have discernible stutter. Assume a system running at 60 FPS, that's 16.7 milliseconds per frame. But therein lies the issue: there is nothing that guarantees that those 60 frames will be evenly distributed such that one occurs every 16.7 milliseconds. In fact, if we take an extreme example (just to illustrate the effect), I could have 60 frames per second that actually all fall into the first half-second, followed by an entire half-second of a frozen screen. Couple that one second with even ten minutes of a test run, and 'on average', your FPS will still be near or exactly 60. Even if you tested for days on end, and - during the split-second (literally) of the stutter, there were still 60 frames that occurred in the time sampled by a test utility, you average frame rate is unchanged. This is why FPS really means little to nothing when it comes to overall smoothness - something our OP is confronting, and something that I think is related to loading textures (as Pol pointed out above). What did I do about it? Well, for one, I noticed a lot of it was a lot better with P3 (as compared to P2). I had actually figured out that the Airco DH2 was the *worst* in P2 (or at least among the worst). Every time I'd load up QC, and start getting close-in on the tail of a DH2 (about the range where you'd start firing) - BAM - the screen would almost freeze; a bad stutter on the order of a good half-second or so. I also noticed that with closing range (i.e., the textures becoming more detailed as the planes get closer), there were also slight pauses (again, most noticable in my experience on the DH2). All while showing reasonably normal average frame rates. So, at least as far as the DH2 goes, that looks to be gone in P3 (thanks to the talented lot at OBD). About the same time, I also decided for a few reasons it was time to install SSD hard drives. I bought two 30G OCZ drives for $100 each after rebates, and set up a RAID0 array. I kept my old drive and loaded other, less speed-sensitive junk on it. Now, the load times for everything (Windows, right on down) are dramatically reduced. (I would say that the "other" WW1 combat flight sim load times were greatly improved - God knows they were horrible...but I never re-installed it; do your own math). Anyway, am I suggesting that everyone should go out and buy SSD's? Nope. If you can and want to, good - I think it's a good price/performance ratio by now, and eventually everything will be solid-state anyway. But it's still comparatively pricey, per unit of storage space. What it does tell me, though, is that a lot of the 'stutters' come from loading things. So, even if you don't want to buy SSD's, look at your hard disk. Maybe consider a couple of inexpensive platter-based drives in a RAID array; or maybe even a fast single drive. Do some research and you'll see there are reviews and benchmarks all over about disk speed. Maybe de-frag, or even re-loading everything 'clean'. I also tried the W764 RC; didn't seem to make a big difference from XP32, at least for me - although there could be many reasons for this. I don't use ATI cards - and, truth be told, to this day I still fiddle with settings, drivers, sliders, and whatever else just to see if I can make things a shred better (or completely d*ck things up lol). But I can't say that any of this seemed to have changed things nearly as much as getting P3 and getting the SSD's did. Mostly because I don't think anything was 'wrong' with my graphics cards/config, so all the jacking around in the world with these settings didn't improve a lot. I think they make a lot more difference if you're turning things *down* for lesser cards; I use a GTX260/216. I hope this helps in some way.

Having read the most recent threads over at SimHQ, the general opinion seemed to be that the Dolphin and Pflaz XII were welcome additions, but that large problem areas (SP, MP, DF, etc) remained unaddressed. Yes, that's pretty much the state of things with RoF after the latest patch. Believe it or not, many of the 'fixes' listed for the patch were simple typos (swear to God). Of course, anyone dare mention this over at CensorHQ and there's a litany of reasons dispatched as to why it has to be this way: We're not patient enough, buy more planes, the people who do typos are not the same as those supposedly fixing the major flaws, etc. And, of course, if one persists in asking why it's such a mess, well, along come the 'threadlockers'. Mind you, nothing need be said that's against forum rules, insulting or inflammatory...it's basically come down to you're either a member of the "Everything's Glowing with RoF" group, or you will be censored/banned/whatever. Even the mods have, on more than one occasion, engaged in childish name-calling, insults and redicule. One staff member comes along saying the forum won't tolerate such behavior, followed immediately by another staff member flinging insults simply because he doesn't agree with people. Call someone a fanboy, you're admonished. A Mod calls someone a 'troll', and not a peep. That site, and NeoQB's own hijinks, will ultimately spell the demise of RoF, I believe - which, although probably well-deserved by all the prominant parties, would be such a shame and a loss of tremendous potential.

You're not the only one who thinks the 'forced' updates are problematic. And it was touted as a 'feature' - a big reason the online requirement was 'necessary'. Well, like many, I don't want to be forced into updates. Like it or not, these people and their 'business models' trying to dictate what I do and don't run on MY MACHINE is rediculous. It's exactly the same reason the concept of 'thin clients' has failed thus far. And, over on the other forum, the chief thug is busy closing threads at a phenomenal rate. No such thing as an 'open discussion' over there. You can go on and on about RoF being the greatest thing since sliced bread, but don't even think about having an opinion to contrary. I'm really very sorry that it's come to this, as I was one of the biggest pro-RoF supporters prior to it's launch. But this whole experience - the RoF official forum, 777 Studios, NeoQB, and SimHQ...this all just says "loser' to me. Of course, that's just my opinion which, thankfully - at least here - I'm still allowed to have :)

I can't comment on this latest patch, because about a week ago I rebuilt my system ( two new SSD's in a RAID0 array should finally cut down load times *lol*). Unfortunately, I may never find out how much it helps the RoF load times, because I haven't reinstalled RoF - and I'm not sure I will. Sorry for your frustration, but there's a lot of that going around, where this title is concerned. I hope one day we're all going to see it get better, but I have a feeling you might start getting used to the frustration.

Thomas - I stand corrected; you have my apology. I did assume you had written that - which, as I said, was well-written. But then, there are plenty of 8/10 'reviews' of RoF if you want to believe them. I don't know if you can accurately call that "balance". And, as I pointed out: Few people can honestly give this an 8 of 10 if they're being truly objective. PR - another well-taken point, and one that is shared by others as well. I think flight simulators are great - that's actually what I worked on in the Navy (the real kind; not computer games). And my experience further illustrates your point: A flight sim is not necessarily a game. Obviously, I know the difference; I bought (or thought I did) a game. Now, I've already heard it hashed out that RoF was actually intended to be a sim not a game....yeah, right. That's just more rationale from the delusional, trying to justify the complete lack of any real (working) game features. Guarantee you it was hyped as a game. Not only that, but - if RoF isn't 'trying' to be a gme, then why bother with all the (obviously poorly-executed) attempts at 'game' features?? I think it's pretty clear that RoF wasn't intended to be strictly a great simulator; the market for WW1 flight enthusiasts is limited enough as it is...why limit it further by making a simulation that only appeals to actual pilots (i.e. too difficult to play and enjoy)? Every "simulation" game I know of has always had some form of departure from reality for the sake of playability; the truly great ones strike a near-balance between being 'real' and being 'fun'. Some even have comment about this in the developers notes in the documentation; something to the effect of "We know that (insert historically inaccurate 'feature' here), but we decided to add it, to make the gaming experience more enjoyable". While RoF is definitely way up on the 'real' scale, it has almost completely failed on the 'fun' scale. And, just as in your distinction, PR - I think that's where it's playing poorly (no pun intended).

JM - couldn't have said it better myself. You are exactly, totally, 100% spot-on. Well, except for in my case :) I bought RoF - but not only am I not in denial like most of the denizens, I also at this point could give a rat's rear if it ever turns into what it should've been to begin with. I don't wish any evil on RoF or the devs, and if all the 'potential' we keep hearing about finally blossoms, great. But I'll not spend another dime of my money to support it, until they show some real progress with the needed improvements (and I'm sorry, denizens, but the couple of forced patches so far aren't very convincing). And, yes, until such time as I see delivery on (at least some of) the potential, I will continue my 'negative reviews' as I see fit. Maybe neoqb should be considering that they reap what they sow. People - including the reviewer that started all this - are not required to be flattering in their opinions. And Thomas, I do appreciate the well-written review. Yours is written very well, no doubt. And you've really attempted to be objective, that's good. But you're just far, far too kind. 8 of 10? Really? Can't speak for others, but this is what's become of peoples' inherent tendency to overrate. Everything is always 8 or 9 of 10...anything that's a 7 is absolute crap, according to this scale, because no one says a 7 or less. It's just not a very accurate scale when even the worst games are reviewed consistently in the 7+ range. Now, me - some of my all-time favorites rate an 8, maybe 9. I don't think anyone's ever seen a true 10 - 10 meaning there is absolutely NO ROOM for improvement, none. Think about it. Sure, maybe some 9.5's out there...but anything that's truly perfect? I think not. So, to try and keep the scale accurate, I'd say RoF rates maybe a 5 or 6 in it's present state (and 6 is being generous). Sorry, folks, no points here for "potential". Deliver on it, then you'll get the points.

An interesting "review" has appeared as a link over on 'the other' site: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2168777/video_game_review_the_fall_of_rise.html?cat=15 And, of course, the guy who wrote it was promptly attacked by all the crazed denizens who still lack any real objectivity when it comes to an honest review of RoF. Yeah, yeah, brilliant FM, graphics, and so on...gets old after awhile. Those of us who paid for this junk actualy thought we were buying a complete game - not a FM and pretty graphics packaged with nothing else of substance. Gets more interesting by the day.

Flyby - that's due to the 'association' I was discussing before. You can use right-click "open with" and 7zip gives you mutliple options. You also can fix it; just go to (in XP) an Explorer window (not a browser, like Internet Explorer, just Explorer - like "My Computer"). Go to menu "Tools", then down to "Folder Options" and click the File Types tab. Click on New and type rar in the box (#1 in the pic below); click OK. In the first box, you'll see that rar has been added. Now click the "Change" button after "Opens with" (#2). Click the radio button "Select the program from a list", then OK, which opens dialogue #3. Click browse, then navigate to \Program Files\7zip and click on 7zFM.exe (#4). Click OK back through all the dialogues. SD, sometimes the compression is done as a habit, or like Flyby suggests, to bypass filtering by email or AV software. Neat thing there is you don't really have to compress the file - just change the extension to 'zip' and most software is dumb enough to think it's a zip file (it only pays attention to the extension). But, of course, if there's an association on your machine, Windows will try to open the file in whatever program the association points to. You can always right click, Open with...as indicated above. HTH

I did say "To make sure you get the latest version, etc." There are plenty of reasons: 1. Often, the author will update a program - and surely the author's site (or preferred mirror) will have the latest version, where all the other sites may not have updated files, links, etc. 2. Just because you only used freeware once doesn't mean others will. In the example you list, you discuss download managers. Now, I didn't need to find a download manager for P2, since I was already using one (and had been). I've also used it many times since for pretty much any big download. 3. The software we're discussing is 'open source". That means source code is readily available. Unlike CFS3, for example, where the sourc code is protected, anyone or their brother can alter source code if it's made available. When you go to anyoldarbitrarydownload.com, you really don't know what you're getting. Of course, you can assume no one on the Internet does mean things with software. The author's page - a 'dot org', as it were, isn't likely to post files (or point to mirrors) he doesn't trust. 4. Of all the problems I've ever worked on with computers (and believe me, there's been a ton), most - we're talking 95%+ here - have come from what I call 'indiscriminate internet usage'. Simple rule: Know where you go, know what you're getting. Common sense, really. 5. I believe WinRAR is actually much newer than zip (actually, zip predates Windows iteself). So, it stands to reason: the longer it's around, the more of it you'll see. (Take the OP, for example - he knows full well what a zip is, but never heard of RAR before). Also, as computer technology becomes more complex, and bigger files become progressively more commonplace, these utilities will also become more and more common. Consider, for example, that Windows itself didn't used to support zip - but now it does. It didn't always support backups, but it does now. (Even though the versions of these tools that are included with Windows are limited, everyone recognizes they're better than nothing). Ditto the firewall in XP, "background intelligent transfer service" (bits) - and on and on. So, I'd say there are lots of reasons to use a reputable source for downloading/using utilities such as this.

What shipped with Windows is not actually WinZIP, uncleal. It's barely usable, has no interface at all to speak of - bad enough to the point that most people don't know it's there, especially when trying to figure out how to use it. The link you posted is for downloading the same thing I already mentioned, but it's not the author's site. I'd recommend going straight to the author's site (why not?) to make sure you get the latest version, etc.

WinRAR is just another file compression utility, like WinZIP. I think it claims to be marginally better than WinZIP, not sure. I never used it. Here's why: To my knowledge, neither WinZIP nor WinRAR offer "free" versions. Both offer trial versions, so most people download the trial and just keep using it. Not in the spirit of 'shareware' or 'trialware', IMHO...and not legal. A good, open-source (legally free) utility for file compression is called 7Zip (http://www.7-zip.org/). It'll create and open traditional zip files, and will open RAR files. It doesn't support creating RAR files, but I've never found it necessary to do so. Almost forgot :) You don't have to worry about 'choosing' one or the other; both can be supported on a machine just fine. One thing to watch for is that most all programs will try to create/modify Windows 'file associations'. So, it could be that if you install a new program, it will try to set itself as the default program for handling all files of a certain type (based on the three-letter file 'extension'). Windows 'associates' which program to open files with based on it's extension. It's gotten bad enough (*uggh*) that by default Windows doesn't even show file extensions. It's a convenience, especially for people who don't know/don't care...but it's an annoyance otherwise. HTH

The title of this thread is the understatement of the decade. Yes, RoF is having problems; look around. There are at least as many unhappy as there are "satisifed" customers - and IMHO the 'satisfied' group is becoming more and more desperate as we go. Each patch is received by this group as "Well, they fixed what they could with what they had" or even "Well, let's see what the next patch brings...". Problem is, that's what they said about the last patch. And in some cases, the one before that. And all their blind faith and optimism, in the face of the reality that RoF currently is, it just gets old. Nauseating, even. We (many of the people who actually shelled out for this...this mess) are getting tired of hearing about the 'potential'. We paid for something that we didn't get. And these patches - while in fairness, they do appear to address problems, they miss the mark completely as far as addressing what seems to matter to most of the customers. All the big areas where improvement are needed, which are brought up again and again by fans and detractors alike...well, they didn't get much attention at all, it seems. But, let's wait and see what the next patch does... This patch was 199M; pretty big patch. It had a long, long list of what was fixed. But, in all that, few if any of the real core problems are being addressed. Oh, look, there's a "Labor Day Sale" on RoF...less than $30. How timely. You know, one might interpret that as a further indication that RoF is having problems. Or not. I guess it matters what each individual thinks. I'm sure the 'satisfied' group will find some way to say it's not at all about the problems. But I can tell you this: When things are moving well, you don't usually lower the price. 'Nuff said?

*hehe* Those were the days, huh? For me, maybe Boston, Ted Nugent, or Van Halen..and maybe closer to 1980...but, I see yer point (Wife and I are both huge fans of ELO and, for that matter, Traveling Wilburys).

What's the aspect ratio there...16:46.28??? And that's native for a 20-inch monitor? Everything must look awfully tall and skinny on that setup

*hehehe* I married "the worst kind of Yankee" (from New York). A sweet girl, and a darn good cook :) And I've actually been to the Great White North a couple times; my company has a job in Toronto, and I was in Montreal on business in late June. It's a great place...good beer and French-speaking girls And I think that Ernest probably bugged a lot of people *lol* It was funny at first, but leave it to the media to run something into the ground.

The amount of memory you're talking about for a single task isn't necesarily small, honestly - so don't be too overwhelmed because it seems small. Again, as a function of total system memory, it may not seem like a lot, but there's plenty of that 'overhead' stuff to gobble up the balance of your memory. Plus, like I said, the problems with efficiency and speed really compound when it's time to move stuff into (or out of) memory - do a lot of that and your machine c-r-a-w-l-s. That's why it's good to have a reasonable amount of memory beyond what is required to run the stuff you do. As for what you may have seen about a game is using 4G of RAM...well, it's possible, I suppose - but I suspect they aren't really considering what the game uses, so much as what the box says it 'requires' (much like the questions that started this thread). And for all the same reasons discussed. *lol* I've found more computer "experts" in forums that really don't know much about anything, except bragging about their hardware just because they heave thousands of dollars at the latest and greatest. Now, take a guy (like me) doing things on a budget, getting "max whoop ass for the dollar" out of necessity: I consider getting a decent, stable gaming machine for way less than $1000 as exceptional, where anyone can spend $2000+ and pull it off. There are guys who live by 'bang for the buck'...the others are apparently fortunate enough to solve problems by throwing money at them :) I guess I also should've stated that more processes obviously would require/use more memory (but then...that's why they call it "obvious"). And there are, as pointed out, a lot of different utilities that you can use to kill all the stupid "shovelware" apps that are kind enough to crap up a good system by loading themselves at startup. But, don't overlook the tool that ships with Windows - msconfig. Just go Start, Run, and type msconfig, and you have access to a list in the 'startup' tab that shows you (almost all) the offending parties. It's not as friendly as some of the utilities, but not as complicated as others. As always, proceed at your own risk - Googling some of the more cryptic process names is a good way to learn about these processes and whether they're necessary. Finally, regarding the issue of 4x1G sticks filling all slots...well, I'm doing it now, and this machine's "prime stable" at 3.71G (e8400). 'Course I did have to fiddle a lot with voltages, timings, etc, etc...as BirdDogICT points out, it ain't for novices :) HTH

*lol* I'm very sorry I was totally not aware of the whole Duke Nukem thing, Schnitzel. But, I am from the deep South. You have to go slow for us :) (And sure enough, you posted the bit-by-bit part...and now, the light cometh on!) And it was a very clever pun, after all :)

If a given task (in this case, OFF) were the only thing going on inside the computer, then you'd only need about the amount of memory that task required. But, the system itself uses some of that memory as well (generally referred to as "overhead"). Also, although I've admittedly not studied what you're referring to, the number is probably referring to the 'core' component(s) of OFF running. That being the case, you'd obviously need memory space to move parts of things in and out of memory; the more total you have, then the faster and more efficient the process. Gross oversimplification, for the purpose of an example: Imagine if you had two processes that each require 400M. If you have 1G total memory, then you can move the entirety of *both* processes in and out of memory at will, without ever having to do either move in parts. Plus, the 'overhead' that is managing the movement of both processes has to live somewhere itself. I can't actually imagine much of anything going on inside a PC that doesn't require some memory; for our purposes you might as well consider that everything you do is pretty much loaded into (and, at some point, out of) memory. And Windows-based PC's are constantly shuffling crap in and out of memory. Again, oversimplified, but you can see the point. The total memory requirement has to account for 'total' system memory; in order to run the 400M+/- task well enough, the system will need 2-2.5G to allow for everything else it does to run the 400M task. Also, having adequate RAM is essential - but everyone almost always overestimates the need for memory beyond what is required. Once you go past what is really needed, there is much less 'benefit per unit' of memory. Going from 512M to 1G makes a big difference (just talkin' Windows XP here), but going from 2 to 2.5G isn't that big a deal even though it's the exact same numerical amount of increase. The real reason more RAM benefits most users is as I described above, system overhead and particularly task switching between several open apps at once. HTH, just my opinion here as always.