We will be doing maintenance work on Vivaldi Translate on the 11th of May starting at 03:00 (UTC) (see the time in your time zone).
Some downtime and service disruptions may be experienced.
Thanks in advance for your patience.
Vivaldi on modest older hardware
-
I have one, but I even resist running current versions of Opera on it.
-
@gdveggie
All other browsers that I used/tried on this PC, worked fine.This PC has 865 chipset which supports only xpdm vga drivers with max.96mb shared memory. Windows vista/7 needs wddm drivers but I have used windows 7 for more than 1.5 years on this PC.And I think you are right,the development team will take care of speed/performance issues later.vivaldi://gpu info -
! Graphics Feature Status
Canvas: Software only, hardware acceleration unavailable
Flash: Software only, hardware acceleration unavailable
Flash Stage3D: Software only, hardware acceleration unavailable
Flash Stage3D Baseline profile: Software only, hardware acceleration unavailable
Compositing: Software only, hardware acceleration unavailable
Multiple Raster Threads: Disabled
Rasterization: Software only, hardware acceleration unavailable
Threaded Rasterization: Unavailable
Video Decode: Software only, hardware acceleration unavailable
Video Encode: Software only, hardware acceleration unavailable
WebGL: Unavailable
Driver Bug Workarounds
clear_uniforms_before_first_program_use
disable_d3d11
exit_on_context_lost
scalarize_vec_and_mat_constructor_args
Problems Detected
GPU process was unable to boot: All GPU features are blacklisted.
Disabled Features: all
Drivers older than 2009-01 on Windows are possibly unreliable: 72979, 89802, 315205
Disabled Features: all
Hardware video decode is only supported in win7+: 159458
Disabled Features: accelerated_video_decode
All Intel drivers before 8.15.10.2021 are buggy with Stage3D baseline mode: 172771
Disabled Features: flash_stage3d_baseline
Accelerated video decode interferes with GPU sandbox on older Intel drivers: 180695, 298968, 436968
Disabled Features: accelerated_video_decode
Disable GPU on all Windows versions prior to and including Vista: 315199
Disabled Features: all
GPU rasterization is blacklisted on non-Android: 362779
Disabled Features: gpu_rasterization
Some drivers are unable to reset the D3D device in the GPU process sandbox
Applied Workarounds: exit_on_context_lost
Disable use of Direct3D 11 on Windows Vista and lower
Applied Workarounds: disable_d3d11
Clear uniforms before first program use on all platforms: 124764, 349137
Applied Workarounds: clear_uniforms_before_first_program_use
Always rewrite vec/mat constructors to be consistent: 398694
Applied Workarounds: scalarize_vec_and_mat_constructor_args
Old Intel drivers cannot reliably support D3D11: 363721
Applied Workarounds: disable_d3d11
Raster is using a single thread.
Disabled Features: multiple_raster_threads
Version Information
Data exported 4/20/2015, 10:51:13 AM
Chrome version Chrome/41.0.2272.105
Operating system Windows NT 5.1 SP3
Software rendering list version 9.18
Driver bug list version 7.13
ANGLE commit id ea878cb95829
2D graphics backend Skia
Command Line Args Settings\Application Data\Vivaldi\Application\vivaldi.exe" –always-authorize-plugins --flag-switches-begin --flag-switches-end
Performance Information
Graphics 0.0
Gaming 0.0
Overall 0.0
Driver Information
Initialization time 0
Sandboxed false
GPU0 VENDOR = 0x8086, DEVICE= 0x2572
Optimus false
AMD switchable false
Desktop compositing none
Driver vendor Intel Corporation
Driver version 6.14.10.4396
Driver date 9-20-2005
Pixel shader version
Vertex shader version
Machine model name
Machine model version
GL_VENDOR
GL_RENDERER
GL_VERSION
GL_EXTENSIONS
Window system binding vendor
Window system binding version
Window system binding extensions
Direct rendering Yes
Reset notification strategy 0x0000
GPU process crash count 0
Diagnostics
... loading ... -
This PC has 865 chipset which supports only xpdm vga drivers with max.96mb shared memory. Windows vista/7 needs wddm drivers but I have used windows 7 for more than 1.5 years on this PC.
I'm not clear enough about the hardware and driver issues, or maybe I would understand this, but if the chipset only supports xpdm vga drivers, how are you able to run Win7 on the machine? …And if it is some driver workaround to run Win7, is the chipset the reason for the performance problem (and the 0.0 scores below?) ...And if you had a video card to add, would that make a difference, or would the chipset still be a limiting factor?
Performance Information
Graphics 0.0
Gaming 0.0
Overall 0.0Oh, that's funny! When you reported those numbers earlier, I thought you were joking and just making up the numbers because the performance was so poor!
-
I'm not clear enough about the hardware and driver issues, or maybe I would understand this, but if the chipset only supports xpdm vga drivers, how are you able to run Win7 on the machine?
Just using the XP drivers.
For the record with win8/win8.1 they cannot be used, but in win 8.x the "basic microsoft vga driver", is not so basic anymore and some sort of video and 3D acceleration is available.
My TC1100 tablet (which is more than 10 years old) has a VGA ranking of 1 point in win 7 (using the XP drivers) but reach 2.2 in win 8 and almost everything works better there.
So my suggestion is to try win 8 on outdated PCs
-
My TC1100 tablet (which is more than 10 years old) has a VGA ranking of 1 point in win 7 (using the XP drivers) but reach 2.2 in win 8 and almost everything works better there.
So my suggestion is to try win 8 on outdated PCs
Verrry interesting! I have no interest in the Win8 UI, but I recall hearing before it was released that it would probably be better on older hardware than Win7. I have a 2003 Acer TravelMate C102ti Tablet PC (WinXPpro Tablet Edition) with dead batteries and a "passive" VGA screen (too dim to use anywhere but indoors) that I've been thinking of either updating to WinXPsp3 and the last XP WinUpdates at some point or trying Puppy Linux with legacy drivers. But can't Win8 be installed on a trial basis for 3 days or 30 days or something like that? If so, might be fun to check it out.
And you've been checking out Win10 IIRC. How would it be on older hardware?
-
Verrry interesting! I have no interest in the Win8 UI
It depends on what's your meaning of Win8 UI.
If you are talking about the Metro part, almost no one cares (me included). But Classic Shell is more than enough to forget it.
The Desktop part instead is greatly improved over Win 7. A bunch of little things that are more than worth to have.
Say the damn "open command prompt here" menu, which is present on KDE since '99 or so, is finally available in win8.x.
The double click to mount an ISO image or a virtual disk, the ability to use the WIFI to share a 3G connection and so on.Most of them are available via third party utilites on win 7, but have them ready to go is a real pleasure.
I have a 2003 Acer TravelMate C102ti Tablet PC (WinXPpro Tablet Edition) with dead batteries and a "passive" VGA screen (too dim to use anywhere but indoors)
A CCFL replacement lamp is cheap nowadays (around 10$) and not impossible to replace even for an inexperienced user.
Who sells the lamps, usually provides links to some video guides.
For most adventurous people there are also some cheap LCD upgrade kits.
that I've been thinking of either updating to WinXPsp3 and the last XP WinUpdates at some point or trying Puppy Linux with legacy drivers.
Puppy is nice on older HW, especially if you don't use the latest versions. You can even install it on a virtual drive on top of a FAT32/NTFS disk, so no partitioning troubles.
And you've been checking out Win10 IIRC. How would it be on older hardware?
Well, win 10 is likely a bit slower than win 8, but that's not the main problem.
Win 8 and win 10 wants a CPU with NX bit and PAE support. The latest windows version that install w/o doing that control is Win 8 Developer Preview (build 8102).
So if you have a CPU that lacks one or both of that features you have to patch it.
The patch is available for win 8 and win 8.1 but no one bothered to do it for win 10, given it changes every week.
Maybe after the official release…
-
If you are talking about the Metro part, almost no one cares (me included). But Classic Shell is more than enough to forget it.
Yes, I was referring to Metro, but I'm already familiar with Classic Shell and there's no way I would even consider using Win8 without it.
A CCFL replacement lamp is cheap nowadays (around 10$) and not impossible to replace even for an inexperienced user.
The screen on that machine works as it is supposed to; but it is older "passive" technology than the newer "active" that became widely available not long afterward. I haven't looked up the official/correct terminology, but "passive" and "active" were widely used at the time. So I don't know if "CCFL" is "active" or "passive", but if an "active" replacement screen could be substituted (I doubt it ?) and could be procured cheaply enough, I would be comfortable doing the physical dismantling/installation.
But I doubt it would be worth it as the machine only has (IIRC) an 800MHz Pentium 3-M CPU, max 256MB RAM (PC100-SDRAM per online review), 8 MB on-board video RAM (per online review), 30GB HDD, USB 1.1 port, and a PCMCIA type II port that never seemed to work properly with anything I tried in it. On the other hand, it does have a Firewire port (roughly equal to USB 2.0), external VGA port (may only drive up to 1024x728 IIRC), a 10/100 Mbit network port, and Wacom electromagnetic digitizer to convert handwriting (that worked very well in WinXP TabletPC Edition).
Puppy is nice on older HW, especially if you don't use the latest versions. You can even install it on a virtual drive on top of a FAT32/NTFS disk, so no partitioning troubles.
You can also install/uninstall and run it directly in Windows (like any other program) which makes it very nice for Windows users to check out Linux without having to uninstall Windows or dual-boot Windows/Linux.
Win 8 and win 10 wants a CPU with NX bit and PAE support. The latest windows version that install w/o doing that control is Win 8 Developer Preview (build 8102).
Do you know if that Win 8 Developer Preview (build 8102) is still available as a "clean" download from a reliable source? If so, it might be interesting to at least try on that machine before I decide whether to install anything "permanently". (If I ever get around to it, as I'll have to dig it out from wherever I packed it during a recent move.)
-
The screen on that machine works as it is supposed to; but it is older "passive" technology
Ahhh… got it. You mean an old style non TFT display. I have one of it but is inside a Thinkpad 701C, which is from '95 or so.
I tough in 2003 they were already extinct, especially on tablets. My TC1000 have not only a TFT panel but it is also an IPS display, an almost mandatory choice, because the need to read it from different orientations.
So I tough to the lack of retroillumination
So I don't know if "CCFL" is "active" or "passive", but if an "active" replacement screen could be substituted (I doubt it ?) and could be procured cheaply enough, I would be comfortable doing the physical dismantling/installation.
CCFL is a lamp "a neon lamp" . Was used on any color LCD, no matter the tecnology of it. In the latest model a led stripe is used instead.
replacement screen could be substituted (I doubt it ?)
Maybe. The model number of the original panel is a good starting point to investigate.
If a TFT panel was an option offered by ACER, that "maybe" becomes "almost surely" .
But I doubt it would be worth it as the machine only has
Well 256Mb of ram is a really small RAM amount by nowadays standards. Are you sure can't be upgraded further?
Do you know if that Win 8 Developer Preview (build 8102) is still available as a "clean" download from a reliable source?
I downloaded it few months ago, was a public release so the MD5 checksums are known, so no matter if the source is reliable or unreliable, just check the MD5 to be sure the image is untouched
-
Yes, this is a pre-TFT screen, and I don't think TFT was offered as an option in the Acer TravelMate C100 series (IIRC correctly this C102ti may have been both the "top" and end of that series). This (2003) was definitely near the tail-end of "passive" matrix screens in laptops.
IIRC at the time TFT was still a fair bit more expensive, but prices probably dropped rapidly as they became widely available and were used almost exclusively. At the time, I think maybe "active" TFT screens also used more power than "passive" (I imagine they have improved since then), and this machine had a pretty decent (at the time) 4-4.5 hour battery life IIRC.
I know it is already maxed out on RAM, and I'm about 95% sure it's only 256MB, but I have a vague idea it could possibly be 512MB (definitely not more than that).
For me at the time, the dimness of the screen was no problem as I was only using it indoors, but it really was unusable outdoors.
:doh: I didn't even think about the Win8 md5 when I was posting. I either already have a saved list somewhere or know where it used to be located on the Microsoft site, but I don't recall if they posted Developer Preview or RC md5s… ...but sure, that should be not problem to find.
-
]Yes, this is a pre-TFT screen, and I don't think TFT was offered as an option in the Acer TravelMate C100 series (IIRC correctly this C102ti may have been both the "top" and end of that series). This (2003) was definitely near the tail-end of "passive" matrix screens in laptops.
Yes, my TC1000 was a novelty in 2003 (end of 2003 I believe), but its screen is still way better than the average screen sold today, ad least on middle/low end class notebooks.
IIRC at the time TFT was still a fair bit more expensive, but prices probably dropped rapidly as they became widely available and were used almost exclusively. At the time, I think maybe "active" TFT screens also used more power than "passive"
Yes this was surely true for early TFTs I'm not sure about the situation in 2003.
I know it is already maxed out on RAM, and I'm about 95% sure it's only 256MB, but I have a vague idea it could possibly be 512MB (definitely not more than that).
Perhaps, but keep in mind that often the published specs are written taking in account only the RAM available at the moment of publication.
A look at some dedicated forums is mandatory to understand if the limits are real or not.
:doh: I didn't even think about the Win8 md5 when I was posting. I either already have a saved list somewhere or know where it used to be located on the Microsoft site, but I don't recall if they posted Developer Preview or RC md5s… ...but sure, that should be not problem to find.
File: WindowsDeveloperPreview-32bit-English.iso
CRC-32: 2b559709
MD4: 8edccb993ccf03cd48ac16280b95538c
MD5: 9b7798438fa694ecfa465c93a4c23c97
SHA-1: 4e0698bbabe01ed27582c9fc16ad21c4422913cc -
Thanks. That will make the ISO quicker to find… ...after I find the laptop!
I just recalled where the original documentation was, and of the items about which I was uncertain, it says max 256MB (2x128MB PC-133MHz SDRAM soDIMMs), 8MB Video DRAM, 802.11b WiFi. I understand what you're suggesting about the possibility of that being the largest chips available at the time of the documentation, but I'm pretty sure I looked into it around 2006-2007 and verified that it wouldn't accept more (AFAICR it was something else in the hardware or possibly the BIOS that was the limiting factor). At any rate, when I dig out the laptop, I will check that again for sure.
However, the documentation also says 10.4" Thin-Film Transistor (TFT) LCD !!! (24-bit color, 1024x768 XGA resolution)… ...So I don't know why I was recalling "passive" as opposed to "active" (maybe I'm mixing up that passive/active terminology with a much earlier Win3.1 laptop of similar size that I really liked). However, I'm pretty sure (until now I would have said 100% certain :P) I not mis-remembering that it was only bright enough to use indoors. Since it is TFT, I'm not sure what would account for that, but my recollection is that something changed in most laptops over the next year or two after I bought it that made them all much brighter.
Another thing I just recalled is that it came with an external USB CD-ROM, and I have an external USB CD-RW/DVD-RW, but at only USB 1.1 on the laptop, it might be slow going to install. I backed up the nearly full 30GB HDD once over the USB 1.1 port and IIRC it took maybe 30-36 hours. (...Although I don't recall it taking more than about 45-60 minutes to install WinXP from the CD-ROM the one time I did it.)
-
I just recalled where the original documentation was, and of the items about which I was uncertain, it says max 256MB (2x128MB PC-133MHz SDRAM soDIMMs), 8MB Video DRAM, 802.11b WiFi. I understand what you're suggesting about the possibility of that being the largest chips available at the time of the documentation, but I'm pretty sure I looked into it around 2006-2007 and verified that it wouldn't accept more (AFAICR it was something else in the hardware or possibly the BIOS that was the limiting factor). At any rate, when I dig out the laptop, I will check that again for sure.
The TC-1000 was close enough, originally it had 256MB of ram, 1GHz Crusoe CPU (the slowest CPU ever :cheer: ) an 11Mbps WIFI card, a PCcard slot, 30GB mechanical HDD, a Compact Flash slot, two USB2 ports. And Win XP tablet 2002 as Main OS
I evolved it "slightly" Now it has the TC1100 MB with a 1.1 GHz Pentium M CPU, 2GB of ram, a 128GB SSD, a 300MBps Wifi card and an SD slot, and runs (happily) Win8.1
(the SD slot is a regression because it reads just the plain non SDHC cards, while the old CF slot was able to read any contemporary CF card.
Next step will be the LED upgrade to the LCD panel. (my CCFL lamp died some time ago)Another thing I just recalled is that it came with an external USB CD-ROM, and I have an external USB CD-RW/DVD-RW, but at only USB 1.1 on the laptop, it might be slow going to install. I backed up the nearly full 30GB HDD once over the USB 1.1 port and IIRC it took maybe 30-36 hours. (…Although I don't recall it taking more than about 45-60 minutes to install WinXP from the CD-ROM the one time I did it.)
If the USB 1.1 is just on the DVD drive side, is not a problem, just use Rufus and a pendrive to install it.
If, instead, is the notebook that is limited, would be better to take the HDD out of the tablet, then connect it to a desktop PC and deploy the the Win 8 image with DISM or imagex (a method way faster on actual PCs too).
-
So you physically upgraded a TC1000 to roughly the equivalent of the TC1100 by changing CPU & WiFi card, and increasing RAM - those are some pretty good upgrades, especially 256MB to 2GB RAM! Even 512MB would be great on my C102ti; 2GB would be fantastic.
Per Wikipedia "a 700MHz Crusoe ran x86 programs at the speed of a 500MHz Pentium III x86 processor", so that 1GHz Crusoe was probably very close to my 800MHz P-III (or maybe slightly slower).
So you can even change from LED to LCD screen in that machine? I would have thought the technology, power requirements, connectors, etc. would be too different.
And what about your HDD to SSD swap? I think my HDD would be IDE/PATA and I thought everything now was SATA which didn't even exist then.
-
So you physically upgraded a TC1000 to roughly the equivalent of the TC1100 by changing CPU & WiFi card, and increasing RAM - those are some pretty good upgrades, especially 256MB to 2GB RAM! Even 512MB would be great on my C102ti; 2GB would be fantastic.
No the mainboard was just the latest addition, everything else was already updated when i I got a deal for a TC1100 MB.
For the record when I replaced the MB I discovered one of the weirdest things ever seen inside a PC.
It had two ram modules: one was SDRAM and the other was DDR. Two RAM generations working together on the same PC :blink:Per Wikipedia "a 700MHz Crusoe ran x86 programs at the speed of a 500MHz Pentium III x86 processor", so that 1GHz Crusoe was probably very close to my 800MHz P-III (or maybe slightly slower).
Likely Wikipedia is a little optimistic about the Crusoe. The TC1000 was barely enough to run XP tablet with the old style writing tools, XP sp3 was already too much for it. The (one year younger) TC1100 instead was waaay better with a choice of Celerons and Pentiums M, starting from 900Mhz to 1.2 Ghz. The latest 1.2 Ghz version supports the NX bits and the PAE extensions, so can run win 8 w/o any patch, but is rare.
So you can even change from LED to LCD screen in that machine?
See the link for infos, but don't look at the prices, on ebay you can get some kits for few dollars
http://www.iccfl.com/index.php?cPath=205
And what about your HDD to SSD swap? I think my HDD would be IDE/PATA and I thought everything now was SATA which didn't even exist then.
PATA SSDs exists but are rare and expensive, so i used a not expensive mSata SSD plus a cheap (5$) pata2sata adapter.
When I have to move the disk on another PC/Laptop I have just to replace the adapter with an even cheaper passive msata2sata one
-
Gee, that's not so bad. Finally decided to install it on the "nettop". Start up seemed to take forever - not certain how much of that to blame on antivirus - but now that it's up it seems nearly as good as on the slower of the two Win7 laptops.
-
Gee, that's not so bad. Finally decided to install it on the "nettop". Start up seemed to take forever - not certain how much of that to blame on antivirus - but now that it's up it seems nearly as good as on the slower of the two Win7 laptops.
Is that the one you mentioned here: "Then there's my XP system - a "nettop" (Atom processor, 1 GB RAM but nVidia graphics)"?
If so, since I'm thinking video is my CPU hog bottleneck how about posting the Graphics and Gaming GPU performance figures. …What is the CPU usage like for Vivaldi Firstrun tab? …And about how many tabs will it handle adequately? (...Maybe for some kind of consistency of comparison, just open Vivaldi forum/blog tabs, which have no ads, flash, etc., and probably all have roughly the same modest demands per tab)
.
BTW, I haven't actually timed my startup times but it's pretty slow; seems like about 20-30 seconds.Also, since you have 3-4 "modest" systems running Vivaldi, if/when you have time it would be helpful to see CPU, RAM, video graphics chipset/memory, and GPU Graphics & Gaming performance for each (it appears only the Graphics and Gaming figures are relevant as "Overall" appears to just be the lower of those 2).
In fact, I've been thinking I'd like to request each user who posts system info in this thread to provide (if you want to) a SPOILER attachment of a system summary (e.g., maybe from Speccy) and a copy&paste of your vivaldi://gpu results. Most of the vivaldi://gpu info would probably not be helpful/relevant, but maybe (?) some lines in the Graphics Feature Status would be useful for comparison, and the page also displays the date, OS, Chrome version, Desktop compositing (e.g., none, Aero Glass, etc.), driver vendor/version, etc. that might be useful for comparing systems.
Here's an example of what I have in mind:
Dell E5400 Laptop vivaldi:\gpu results [32-bit v1.0.156.2 on 32-bit Win7; Intel Mobile Core 2 Duo P8400 @2.26GHz, 2GB DDR2 RAM @398MHz, Intel Mobil 4 Series Express Chipset w 64MB on-board dedicated graphics memory]:
!
[attachment=1105]DellE5400Speccyv1.28.709summaryscreenF.png[/attachment]
! Graphics Feature Status
Canvas: Software only, hardware acceleration unavailable
Flash: Hardware accelerated
Flash Stage3D: Hardware accelerated
Flash Stage3D Baseline profile: Hardware accelerated
Compositing: Hardware accelerated
Multiple Raster Threads: Disabled
Rasterization: Software only, hardware acceleration unavailable
Threaded Rasterization: Enabled
Video Decode: Software only, hardware acceleration unavailable
Video Encode: Hardware accelerated
WebGL: Hardware accelerated
Driver Bug Workarounds
clear_uniforms_before_first_program_use
disable_d3d11
exit_on_context_lost
scalarize_vec_and_mat_constructor_args
texsubimage2d_faster_than_teximage2d
Problems Detected
Accelerated 2d canvas is disabled on Windows systems with low perf stats: 116350, 151500
Disabled Features: accelerated_2d_canvas
Accelerated video decode interferes with GPU sandbox on older Intel drivers: 180695, 298968, 436968
Disabled Features: accelerated_video_decode
GPU rasterization is blacklisted on non-Android: 362779
Disabled Features: gpu_rasterization
Some drivers are unable to reset the D3D device in the GPU process sandbox
Applied Workarounds: exit_on_context_lost
TexSubImage2D() is faster for full uploads on ANGLE
Applied Workarounds: texsubimage2d_faster_than_teximage2d
Clear uniforms before first program use on all platforms: 124764, 349137
Applied Workarounds: clear_uniforms_before_first_program_use
Always rewrite vec/mat constructors to be consistent: 398694
Applied Workarounds: scalarize_vec_and_mat_constructor_args
Old Intel drivers cannot reliably support D3D11: 363721
Applied Workarounds: disable_d3d11
Raster is using a single thread.
Disabled Features: multiple_raster_threads
Version Information
Data exported 4/21/2015, 6:14:03 PM
Chrome version Chrome/41.0.2272.105
Operating system Windows NT 6.1 SP1
Software rendering list version 9.18
Driver bug list version 7.13
ANGLE commit id ea878cb95829
2D graphics backend Skia
Command Line Args (non-registered)\Vivaldi.1.0.156.2\Application\vivaldi.exe" –always-authorize-plugins --ppapi-flash-path="C:\Windows\system32\Macromed\Flash\pepflashplayer32_17_0_0_169.dll" --flag-switches-begin --flag-switches-end
Performance Information
Graphics 4.1
Gaming 3.4
Overall 3.4
Driver Information
Initialization time 2199
Sandboxed false
GPU0 VENDOR = 0x8086, DEVICE= 0x2a42
Optimus false
AMD switchable false
Desktop compositing none
Driver vendor Intel Corporation
Driver version 8.15.10.2057
Driver date 1-25-2010
Pixel shader version 3.0
Vertex shader version 3.0
Machine model name
Machine model version
GL_VENDOR Google Inc.
GL_RENDERER ANGLE (Mobile Intel(R) 4 Series Express Chipset Family Direct3D9Ex vs_3_0 ps_3_0)
GL_VERSION OpenGL ES 2.0 (ANGLE 2.1.ea878cb95829)
GL_EXTENSIONS GL_OES_element_index_uint GL_OES_packed_depth_stencil GL_OES_get_program_binary GL_OES_rgb8_rgba8 GL_EXT_texture_format_BGRA8888 GL_EXT_read_format_bgra GL_OES_texture_half_float GL_OES_texture_half_float_linear GL_OES_texture_float GL_EXT_texture_compression_dxt1 GL_ANGLE_texture_compression_dxt3 GL_ANGLE_texture_compression_dxt5 GL_EXT_texture_storage GL_EXT_texture_filter_anisotropic GL_EXT_occlusion_query_boolean GL_NV_fence GL_EXT_robustness GL_EXT_blend_minmax GL_ANGLE_framebuffer_blit GL_ANGLE_framebuffer_multisample GL_ANGLE_instanced_arrays GL_ANGLE_pack_reverse_row_order GL_OES_standard_derivatives GL_EXT_shader_texture_lod GL_EXT_frag_depth GL_ANGLE_texture_usage GL_ANGLE_translated_shader_source
Window system binding vendor Google Inc. (adapter LUID: 0000000000007e53)
Window system binding version 1.4 (ANGLE 2.1.ea878cb95829)
Window system binding extensions EGL_EXT_create_context_robustness EGL_ANGLE_d3d_share_handle_client_buffer EGL_ANGLE_surface_d3d_texture_2d_share_handle EGL_ANGLE_query_surface_pointer EGL_ANGLE_window_fixed_size EGL_NV_post_sub_buffer EGL_KHR_create_context
Direct rendering Yes
Reset notification strategy 0x8252
GPU process crash count 0
Diagnostics
0
b3DAccelerationEnabled true
b3DAccelerationExists true
bAGPEnabled true
bAGPExistenceValid true
bAGPExists true
bCanRenderWindow true
bDDAccelerationEnabled true
bDriverBeta false
bDriverDebug false
bDriverSigned false
bDriverSignedValid false
bNoHardware false
dwBpp 32
dwDDIVersion 10
dwHeight 900
dwRefreshRate 60
dwWHQLLevel 0
dwWidth 1440
iAdapter 0
lDriverSize 550912
lMiniVddSize 0
szAGPStatusEnglish Enabled
szAGPStatusLocalized Enabled
szChipType Mobile Intel(R) 4 Series Express Chipset Family
szD3DStatusEnglish Enabled
szD3DStatusLocalized Enabled
szDACType Internal
szDDIVersionEnglish 10
szDDIVersionLocalized 10
szDDStatusEnglish Enabled
szDDStatusLocalized Enabled
szDXVAHDEnglish Supported
szDXVAModes ModeMPEG2_A ModeMPEG2_C ModeWMV9_B ModeWMV9_C ModeVC1_B ModeVC1_C
szDescription Mobile Intel(R) 4 Series Express Chipset Family
szDeviceId 0x2A42
szDeviceIdentifier {D7B78E66-6902-11CF-917B-6822A7C2C535}
szDeviceName \.\DISPLAY1
szDisplayMemoryEnglish 809 MB
szDisplayMemoryLocalized 809 MB
szDisplayModeEnglish 1440 x 900 (32 bit) (60Hz)
szDisplayModeLocalized 1440 x 900 (32 bit) (60Hz)
szDriverAssemblyVersion 8.15.10.2057
szDriverAttributes Final Retail
szDriverDateEnglish 1/25/2010 21:35:46
szDriverDateLocalized 2010.01.25 09.35.46 pm
szDriverLanguageEnglish English
szDriverLanguageLocalized English
szDriverModelEnglish WDDM 1.1
szDriverModelLocalized WDDM 1.1
szDriverName igdumdx32.dll,igd10umd32.dll
szDriverNodeStrongName oem15.inf:Intel.Mfg:iCNT0:8.15.10.2057:pci\ven_8086&dev_2a42&subsys_02621028
szDriverSignDate
szDriverVersion 8.15.0010.2057
szKeyDeviceID Enum\PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_2A42&SUBSYS_02621028&REV_07
szKeyDeviceKey \Registry\Machine\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\Video{3667D695-A700-476D-BDC1-DD9D20FE336A}\0000
szManufacturer Intel Corporation
szMiniVdd n/a
szMiniVddDateEnglish n/a
szMiniVddDateLocalized n/a
szMonitorMaxRes
szMonitorName Generic PnP Monitor
szNotesEnglish No problems found.
szNotesLocalized No problems found.
szOverlayEnglish Supported
szRankOfInstalledDriver 00E60001
szRegHelpText
szRevision
szRevisionId 0x0007
szSubSysId 0x02621028
szTestResultD3D7English Not run
szTestResultD3D7Localized Not run
szTestResultD3D8English Not run
szTestResultD3D8Localized Not run
szTestResultD3D9English Not run
szTestResultD3D9Localized Not run
szTestResultDDEnglish Not run
szTestResultDDLocalized Not run
szVdd n/a
szVendorId 0x8086
Log Messages
GpuProcessHostUIShim: The GPU process exited normally. Everything is okay.
Attachments:
-
The latest snapshot is running quite well on Lubuntu on a tower with much not much different specs than that one.
It's got a 3.0 GHz P4 with 2Gb of PC 2700 DDR RAM running at 333 MHz, a 80 Gb Hdd (and a 20 Gb second drive) with a 1024 X 768 generic LCD monitor.
It's also doing well on a Lenovo Thinkpad with Windows 7 Home Premium on a Core 2 duo T5450 @ 167GHz and 3 GB of PC2 5300 SDRAM @ 667 MHz.
-
@Ayespy: Just curious, are you set up to dual boot Win7 and Linux? …and if so, have you by any chance tried the same Vivaldi version on both Win7 and Linux. ...if so, do they seem comparable or can you subjectively notice any performance difference?
How many Vivaldi forum tabs will the Linux box handle without starting to lag?
BTW, I just haven't yet been able to do do much with Vivaldi on my 64-bit Win7 system (Intel Celeron dual core @1.40GHz; 8GB DDR3 @665MHz; 128MB on-board Intel Integrated 32-bit HD Graphics) but it definitely handles both 32-bit and 64-bit Vivaldi much better. Still not as snappy as I'd like, but pretty sure it will be satisfactory after developers optimize more for speed/performance.
-
No, sorry. I'm not dual-booting anything. I have Vivaldi on a Win 8.1 and 2 Win 7 machines (1 tower and 1 kind of marginal laptop) - plus a laptop I put Win 10 on because Win 7 was just too slow on it.
The only machines I have Linux on are ones that were agonizingly slow under XP, so I put very light-weight linux distros on them. I'd have to be a bit mad to dual-boot those, as they've already proven too weak for the OS they shipped with. I have Vivaldi on the Lubuntu machine, and it does well there.
So I'd love to give you some comparison on identical hardware, but I don't have it.
-
Depend on other factors too - some versions of Linux such as Lubuntu are designed with more modest hardware in mind and will typically have less overhead than Windows. I recall the same thing with Presto - it could be better or worse under Linux depending on other factors.
