Celestia Forums

Please help. Before, I use Celestia on XP, and its perform is excellent. Now, I try with Vista, and I get a problem. The display is show more slowly.
I try to check my computer perform, and its CPU busy is stand on 100%. This is different if I use Celestia on XP. Any suggest for me, because I need Celestia...

Please check your drivers, especially for your graphics card.

Have you run windows update ?

edit 5:29 pm

john Van Vliet wrote:just a question
Not just with Celestia but has anyone had a good experience on vista.

I'm doing just fine thank you.

Was a real pain to understand, get set up correctly, and then to get used to, but I do rather LIKE the system now.
Please be aware though, that Vista is a memory-intensive O.S. When I'm sitting here looking at my desktop with
no particular program running, I see at least 64 separate processes running at the same time. Please also keep in
mind that I had never had an Nvidia graphics card before either, and some of the processes have to do with
the manipulation of that device too.

I'm happy with Celestia and other programs on my Vista machine. See signature. You do know of the problems
I had getting it set up and working though... Remember?

Thanks, Bob

WAS happy, but now I'm getting very frustrated with this thing...
See my post in Purgatory.
Grumpy Bob...

edit 5:28 pm

It?s OBVIOUS that you are doing fine and is happy with Vista.You have a CORE2QUAD!!Anyone with a basic CPU like mine will have some problems,at least...
It appears that Celestia perfomance relies more on the CPU and memory than on the video card,at least with Windows Vista.

BobHegwood wrote:

john Van Vliet wrote:just a question
Not just with Celestia but has anyone had a good experience on vista.

I'm doing just fine thank you.

Was a real pain to understand, get set up correctly, and then to get used to, but I do rather LIKE the system now.
Please be aware though, that Vista is a memory-intensive O.S. When I'm sitting here looking at my desktop with
no particular program running, I see at least 64 separate processes running at the same time. Please also keep in
mind that I had never had an Nvidia graphics card before either, and some of the processes have to do with
the manipulation of that device too.

I'm happy with Celestia and other programs on my Vista machine. See signature. You do know of the problems
I had getting it set up and working though... Remember?

Thanks, Bob

danielj wrote:It?s OBVIOUS that you are doing fine and is happy with Vista.You have a CORE2QUAD!!Anyone with a basic CPU like mine will have some problems,at least...
It appears that Celestia perfomance relies more on the CPU and memory than on the video card,at least with Windows Vista.

Well, the Q6600 is the cheapest Core2 Quad which cost ~220$ (140€ )
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... 6684177-20

danielj wrote:It?s OBVIOUS that you are doing fine and is happy with Vista.You have a CORE2QUAD!!Anyone with a basic CPU like mine will have some problems,at least...
It appears that Celestia perfomance relies more on the CPU and memory than on the video card,at least with Windows Vista.

So what are you trying to say?

Would you prefer it if I just kept my mouth shut and refused to offer any advice with my experience here?
I have already mentioned that Vista is memory-intensive... What else do you want? Confused, Brain-Dead, Bob

Vista is more memory intensive than VGA intensive?
If someone know that,he would buy 3 GB of RAM or more.Unfourntanetelly,there is almost no more DDR400 memories and if I want a DDR2 memory,I should money to buy a new computer and I don?t.The problem is you have to have a lot of money to chance CPU,mainboard and DDR2,since NO ONE buy your old one.

I have Celestia at my computer but I do not have any problems with it.

ATTENTON 32 bits ( NOT 64 bits) BIOS

windows vista 32 bits <=

Core2Quad Q6600 is cheap in USA.In Brazil,it?s not the case.Anyway,the main problem is that no one wants my old 939 system and I need this money to buy a better CPU...EVEN when someone wanted,the offer was very bad.I should sell my system Athlon64 X2 3800,Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe and 3 GB RAM DDR400 plus 130 dollars to get a AM2 system equivalent,not even a little better:Athlon64 X2 4000,M2N-X (not the Plus,that supports Phenom) and 2 GB RAM DDR667.
I give up Vista,since even having 3 GB of RAM DDR400 wasn?t ENOUGH to run Celestia at decent frame rate,specially running complex addons like Mars3D,Titan Postcards Light and Io?s volcanoes.If by some miracle,I have more money in the end of the year,I will buy a better CPU
It?s a pity that hires Celestia is so demanding in terms of CPU,specially under Vista

When I say 130 dollars,I mean 200 DOLLARS
Anyway,it was unnaceptable

No problem at all here with Celestia on Vista.
It's a well matured, rock-solid OS from my point of view.
Reminds me of Windows 2000 (best stability ever) and Linux (security).
It has become my multi-boot OS of choice.
XP is clearly getting obsolete anyway, like it or not.
It's a fact.

I DON?T MIND GETTING OBSOLETE.Your system with a Core2 Quad running at 3.42 GHz,8 GB RAM and 9800 GX2 CAN?T COMPARE TO MY humble Athlon64 X2 3800 RUNNING AT 2.0 GHz,3 GB RAM and 8800 GS,cause IT?S A MONSTER
Playing my favorite games and Celestia is ENOUGH for me.I don?t mind the newest games that runs better at DX10...

Windows Vista Home Premium

Be sure to update to the latest Service Pack and install the latest patches.

Celestia runs fine here.
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 1.8GHz

ATI X1600Driver Packaging Version 8.501-080602a-064789C-ATI
Catalyst® Version 08.6

Direct3D Version 7.14.10.0590
OpenGL Version 6.14.10.7659
Catalyst® Control Center Version 2008.0602.2243.38732

-----------------------------------

Does Celestia works with UAC ? (Don't know because I have disabled it)

Well,maybe the problem was the dual boot
Hum...OK,you said runs fine,but you probably don?t have many addons and few high resolution textures....

Got jules verne and star wars episode 1 addon

also virtual texture for the earth up to level 5 and it worked fine, albeit very slow.