locoDog
This is my second machine (link to spec below) that I've just sunk £50 (I'll admit it I'm poor) for 4GB of memory, Before the RAM upgrade (It had 1GB on Vista 64 lol) V7 just about, played ok, V8 however just couldn't hack even loading a song (no surprise really, mainly GFX just failing) So after the RAM upgrade the issues persist, but I reason an inherited laptop, I best format and start a fresh.
So after Formatting/installing/driver updating and about 170 updates guess what, it still doesn't work (oddly my primary machine which is lower spec, older, 0.2GHz lower CPU speed only 2 GB of RAM works pretty well with V8 other than 4 deck rhythm waves & coloured waves)
So what gives? Should this cut it? or is it the AMDness that fails
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Acer-Aspire-7520-Hard-drive-GeForce7000/dp/B000VPLHEM
Also the minimum spec description for V8 is useless
minimum spec: Windows xp machine
So after Formatting/installing/driver updating and about 170 updates guess what, it still doesn't work (oddly my primary machine which is lower spec, older, 0.2GHz lower CPU speed only 2 GB of RAM works pretty well with V8 other than 4 deck rhythm waves & coloured waves)
So what gives? Should this cut it? or is it the AMDness that fails
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Acer-Aspire-7520-Hard-drive-GeForce7000/dp/B000VPLHEM
Also the minimum spec description for V8 is useless
minimum spec: Windows xp machine
Posted Tue 15 Jul 14 @ 7:33 pm
locoDog
Well I got it working I had about 90 more updates and I had to disable HWacceleration, and get the vacuum into the CPU fan
But the skin won't stay above 3FPS when playing, why is V8 so graphics hungry just for a skin,
I'm not sure what I can do to make it better. Unless it really is a issue that V8 is too graphics hungry and not just users with ancient laptops.
But the skin won't stay above 3FPS when playing, why is V8 so graphics hungry just for a skin,
I'm not sure what I can do to make it better. Unless it really is a issue that V8 is too graphics hungry and not just users with ancient laptops.
Posted Thu 17 Jul 14 @ 6:53 am
groovindj
It's a subject of much ongoing debate!
8 was supposed to have solved the old issue of 7 needing to be run with a skin that matched the screen res (because if it didn't, it would stress the system).
Now with 8, all the (designed for 8) skins are running that way - non native resolution, unless you happen to have a 1920x1080 screen.
Are you actually using a skin that matches the screen res (which basically means using a 7 skin)?
8 was supposed to have solved the old issue of 7 needing to be run with a skin that matched the screen res (because if it didn't, it would stress the system).
Now with 8, all the (designed for 8) skins are running that way - non native resolution, unless you happen to have a 1920x1080 screen.
Are you actually using a skin that matches the screen res (which basically means using a 7 skin)?
Posted Thu 17 Jul 14 @ 7:55 am
locoDog
I have tried the 1440*900 skin from V7 with no real difference (perhaps 1 or 2 FPS faster) I was hoping that the lower quality of bitmap would save some pain, My next idea is to remove all moving parts from the V8 default skin, (no waves no platters) and see if that makes a difference.
Posted Thu 17 Jul 14 @ 9:48 am
groovindj
I do remember the introduction of multi-coloured waveforms in 7 caused a few issues for people.
Posted Thu 17 Jul 14 @ 2:10 pm
locoDog
Well I've just eliminated the rhythm wave the scratch wave the position wave and the platters and it is running between an almost respectable 21.6 FPS and barely passable 10FPS and a lot of CPU load has been dropped stuff loads at an acceptable speed, so next thing is to figure out out of those which is the worst offender, I hope it's the platters as I have zero need for those, but suspect it will be the waves.
Posted Thu 17 Jul 14 @ 4:41 pm
acw_dj
Hi,
This computer may not work fine, it is on 1.8GHz on an old processor type. Only the very last gen processor may run VirtualDJ 8 fine at that speed, but not older ones. Nvidia GT630M may work fine with the latest drivers and setting it at their very best performance, but if you can't have 25 fps at least, it may not perform good for video mixing on VirtualDJ 8. Windows XP or even Vista in 32 bits may perform better in this type of computer, but this particular one may not be good for VirtualDJ 8, sorry. On old computers (from 3 years old or more, you may need then running at 2.1GHz and good video graphics card (Nvidia GT640 or better or ATI 6770 or better or Intel HD4000 or better) it would perform good on VirtualDJ 8. Graphics cards with less specs than the ones, may or may not work. This is for GT630, ATI 6650 or less. (We have many users with Intel HD3000 and work fine with VirtualDJ 8 too).
This computer may not work fine, it is on 1.8GHz on an old processor type. Only the very last gen processor may run VirtualDJ 8 fine at that speed, but not older ones. Nvidia GT630M may work fine with the latest drivers and setting it at their very best performance, but if you can't have 25 fps at least, it may not perform good for video mixing on VirtualDJ 8. Windows XP or even Vista in 32 bits may perform better in this type of computer, but this particular one may not be good for VirtualDJ 8, sorry. On old computers (from 3 years old or more, you may need then running at 2.1GHz and good video graphics card (Nvidia GT640 or better or ATI 6770 or better or Intel HD4000 or better) it would perform good on VirtualDJ 8. Graphics cards with less specs than the ones, may or may not work. This is for GT630, ATI 6650 or less. (We have many users with Intel HD3000 and work fine with VirtualDJ 8 too).
Posted Mon 21 Jul 14 @ 10:06 am
locoDog
Thanks for the reply acw_dj,
I don't use video, ever, Perhaps the minimum spec (on the download page) should have detailed information like this, at present it just says' XP ' which is very misleading.
I find it very disappointing that the reason I need to upgrade to a new machine (for a program I only use for sound) is graphics when the old machine can handle the sound (effects and all) perfectly fine. Only 3 years is depressingly short span for legacy support.
I suspect if V8's sound quality could be paired with V7's GUI rendering engine, many of the graphical issues that much higher spec users are experiencing could have been avoided. In fact I'll further guess many users would accept this setup even if they don't have issues just to lighten CPU load.
Fortunately with a well managed database, (managed on a machine that doesn't have GFX issues) I don't need waves, other gfx intensive items or even a FPS above 10
Very strange that my primary machine ( a lot lower spec than the other one!) runs V8 with only minor graphical issues at 30FPS
Sony VAIO VGN-N11M/W - Core Duo T2050 / 1.6 GHz - Centrino Duo - RAM 2048 MB - GMA 950 Windows 7 32b
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sony-VAIO-VGN-N11M-Centrino-Widescreen/dp/B000L212RC
I don't use video, ever, Perhaps the minimum spec (on the download page) should have detailed information like this, at present it just says' XP ' which is very misleading.
I find it very disappointing that the reason I need to upgrade to a new machine (for a program I only use for sound) is graphics when the old machine can handle the sound (effects and all) perfectly fine. Only 3 years is depressingly short span for legacy support.
I suspect if V8's sound quality could be paired with V7's GUI rendering engine, many of the graphical issues that much higher spec users are experiencing could have been avoided. In fact I'll further guess many users would accept this setup even if they don't have issues just to lighten CPU load.
Fortunately with a well managed database, (managed on a machine that doesn't have GFX issues) I don't need waves, other gfx intensive items or even a FPS above 10
Very strange that my primary machine ( a lot lower spec than the other one!) runs V8 with only minor graphical issues at 30FPS
Sony VAIO VGN-N11M/W - Core Duo T2050 / 1.6 GHz - Centrino Duo - RAM 2048 MB - GMA 950 Windows 7 32b
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sony-VAIO-VGN-N11M-Centrino-Widescreen/dp/B000L212RC
Posted Mon 21 Jul 14 @ 5:46 pm
djjohnnyrox
Vista???!!!!! hahaha, ok I'll be serious for a minute, I have never been a fan of amd machines and paired with vista its probably no going to run V8 with any reliability. Here's a way you "might" get this to run V8... Wipe the hard drive and install windows xp and do not let it update to any of the service packs. This will run the laptop with the lowest amount of processes in the background. DO NOT go on the internet with it set up this way, as you have no protection at all. In order for this to work you would need the drivers for your laptop to be available for xp and install them from a flash drive. Even if you do this it will be very slow loading songs.
I have an old Atom 1.6 netbook that I installed V8 on, I stripped windows 7 down to the bare minimum, and V8 works on it the cpu is at about 50%
V7 runs flawlessly on it with the cpu around 20%.
I have an old Atom 1.6 netbook that I installed V8 on, I stripped windows 7 down to the bare minimum, and V8 works on it the cpu is at about 50%
V7 runs flawlessly on it with the cpu around 20%.
Posted Tue 22 Jul 14 @ 8:47 am
groovindj
Agreed about dumping Vista. They say that talent skips a generation, and they also say it about Microsoft OS's - every other one is a good 'un.
XP came before Vista so would probably run better on a lower spec machine. I still use XP on my main gig laptop and a couple of netbooks.
I disagree about leaving the service packs off though. You'll likely run into trouble if you don't. Some software and driver installations will demand certain SP levels before they work.
XP came before Vista so would probably run better on a lower spec machine. I still use XP on my main gig laptop and a couple of netbooks.
I disagree about leaving the service packs off though. You'll likely run into trouble if you don't. Some software and driver installations will demand certain SP levels before they work.
Posted Tue 22 Jul 14 @ 9:02 am
locoDog
Give me some credit, wiping vista was the first thing I did after the RAM upgrade,
Both machines are running win 7 32b and the one with the most problems is faster, has 50% more memory, is a fresh install so it doesn't have all the bloat for coding my controller, has better graphics abilities (apparently...)
I've looked around and for £20 I can upgrade the CPU to a tl-55 (dual 2,3GHz ) If it doesn't help well hell I'll have something good enough for my soundclould digging, forum lurking.
I'm still cheesed that that it's graphics killing my machine when they just don't need to be that good.
But I'm inventive I've a few options yet 800*600 16bit colour FTW
Both machines are running win 7 32b and the one with the most problems is faster, has 50% more memory, is a fresh install so it doesn't have all the bloat for coding my controller, has better graphics abilities (apparently...)
I've looked around and for £20 I can upgrade the CPU to a tl-55 (dual 2,3GHz ) If it doesn't help well hell I'll have something good enough for my soundclould digging, forum lurking.
I'm still cheesed that that it's graphics killing my machine when they just don't need to be that good.
But I'm inventive I've a few options yet 800*600 16bit colour FTW
Posted Tue 22 Jul 14 @ 8:06 pm