datter

Honestly man, you don't sound the sort that should be doing a full OS reinstall on a whim. Maybe someone else will send you a link, but I think I'm staying out of this. Good luck.

ok, that would be one of these.... which is a 1.8ghz dual. With only 2gb of ram I would suggest that you be happy you're getting 20fps. You could upgrade to Win7 but I'd suggest you'd want at least 3gb of RAM, and with prices as low as they are these days I'd go ahead and say get at least 4gb. Before that though, I'd look into a faster processor.

Wait a minute, now I'm completely confused. At first you said: When I pointed out this was a tad weak (even without knowing what a "kicken graphics card" is) you replied... Then again just above you say... Hence the confusion. A couple of points (spellerings aside): A) 1.8ghz + 1.8ghz = 3.6ghz, not 3.8 and more importantly B) Is it a dual core 3.6ghz... or a dual core 1.8ghz? If you have a Pentium-D Dual Core 1.8Ghz for instance, you don't multiply the 1.8 by the number of cores to magically get a 3.6ghz system. If you have a dual core 3.6 you should be able to get more out of it, and maybe we can help... but if it's a dual core 1.8gHz then there's very little you can do aside from an upgrade. I only ask for the sake of clarity and I'm just trying to help. Can you post your exact processor type, RAM (type and speed) and make/model of your graphics card? That would help us, help you.

Dual core 1.8ghz, 2gb ram <---- Given that, I think 20fps is pretty damned good.

It works, but I'm afraid it is a limiter in that it limits frame rate. If you're getting 20fps it's not going to be of much use to you,but if you're getting 30+ and you lock it at 30, it will provide a smoother game experience. I wish I had an FPS Booster for you.

Have had Win7 64bit RTM running since last week. It's absolutely the best OS I've used and I fully expected to hate it. I was dead set on hating it in fact.

Now those are screenshots.

I did the same jump (XP to Win7) and am very glad I did. Lightning fast indeed, and no problems to report whatsoever. I'm very glad I skipped Vista, it's in the same category as Win ME to me, which is another Win flavour I totally skipped over and was better off for having done so. Did you get the RTM or an RC?

Google for the "DownThemAll" addon for Firefox, it works great for things like this. Downloading everything now, they've got a damned fast server... I'm getting 1mb per sec on my laptop's crappy wireless. ;)

That's strange. Scans clean here with Avast and AVG on three different machines.

There's really little point to high and very high texture settings anyway so you aren't missing out. If you set to low you lose the sky of all things, so that's a no-go right away. Once you start pushing up to high and very high the only thing that really seems overly affected is the quality of the leaves in the trees. Actual textures (roads etc) don't seem terribly different. "Normal" seems to be about all you need.

Hey, at least I provided some actual patch information. Don't hate me.

We have very similar systems, right down to the motherboard (specs in sig, click "spoiler"). 1) Maybe it's Vista causing your issues? I had better FPS in XP 32bit than you, and up into the 40's playing single missions on Win7 64bit. 2) You should really look into overclocking that processor a bit more. Mine is running at 3.7ghz and it's a rather nice improvement, though it took some work to get there. 3.3ghz was much easier mind you.

That cracked me up for some reason.

Give the kid a break, it's amazing a 3 week old can even use a computer much less get ArmA2 running properly.

Goodbye!

ArmA2 definitely does not utilize graphics cards. I have no graphics card in my system, and no onboard graphics solution either and despite that I get 600fps at all times, even when it's not running. Also, for each mission in the campaign I beat I get one free virgin. I have three saved up so far, although the last one is a dude... but you know how buggy the campaign can be.

TrackIR to the rescue!

I have Win7 64bit RTM installed now and it's brilliant, yes even with ArmA2.

There's this. .

The Tritton AX360's are rather nice. I forget I even have them on.

I had been running 32 bit XP Pro SP3 with 2GB of ram for a long time now and had no complaints with the OS. No complaints with ArmA2 either for that matter, after various tweaks it ran very well. Yesterday however, I finally broke down and moved on. I am now running 6GB of ram (see full system specs and ArmA2 settings in "spoiler" of sig) and Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit (RTM). The game ran without a hitch for me in XP (minus some typical campaign CTD's) and runs at least as well for me afterwards. I have my frame rate locked at 30 (as per this), and it rarely if ever falls below. If anything things feel smoother in Win7, though I'd need to unlock my frame rate to see for sure. Mouse lag is none existent, loading times are brisk, alt-tabbing in and out happens instantly. The only thing that's a bit odd is my ArmA2 menu screen. In XP I'd see the aircraft carrier behind the menu, but in Win7 I am underwater for some reason. No clue what's up with that, but it doesn't seem to cause any problems. All in all I'd say Win7 64bit is an absolutely worthwhile upgrade from XP, especially if you throw 64bit and more RAM into the mix. Your mileage may vary of course, I just wanted to get my experience up here for reference if anyone is considering the switch.

I've been running my system (specs in sig) with 6GB since installing Win7 RTM recently. I had a 6GB mix of OCZ Reaper 8500 DDR2 and 9200 DDR2 running at 857mhz, 4-3-3-5-2T and it's been perfectly fine. Always one to screw around however, I also have a 4GB kit of G.Skill Pi Black 6400 here as well so on a whim I pulled the 2GB of OCZ 9200 and plunked the 4GB of G.Skill in it's place alongside the 4GB of OCZ 8500. Wow, that sounds confusing. The point being I went from a 6GB mix of OCZ 8500 and 9200 @ 857mhz (4-3-3-5) to an 8GB mix of OCZ 8500 and G.Skill 6400 @857 (4-3-3-5). There is of course little point to this performance wise, but I had it kicking around so why not. The new 8GB set up works perfectly well and seems stable, but I did notice an oddity with ArmA2 (of course). With 6GB I ran with the -world empty, -nosplash and -maxmen 2047 switches with no problem. With 8GB my textures appeared all blocky for whatever reason. The game ran smooth, but trees and grass looked like solid, blocky objects. The fix for this (as mentioned elsewhere around here) was to add the -winxp switch to the shortcut. After doing that ArmA2 went back to running and looking fine. If I revert myself back to 6GB and remove the -winxp switch the blocky texture issue goes away. It's interesting the game has a particular problem with 8GB. No clue what might be causing that but it's real and related to the amount of RAM in your system.

No issues here using the 64bit RTM.

I do that already, and this didn't happen at the main menu. I had been playing single player for a good long time with temps in the low 70's. I had to go away from the computer for a bit so I hit escape to pause things and when I came back found the very high temps. Most of the time temps are a-ok, but it seems that once in awhile something goes weird in the menu screens or something that causes temps to climb ridiculously high and fast. There is a link to a 3rd party FPS limiter in my sig that's certainly worth using. I can't say for certain if I had it running the night this problem happened to me, but I suspect I didn't. I generally use it as a rule anyway to lock me at a solid, steady 30fps.