This is patently false. 1) MS does not collect any personal or private information on people. 2) MS does not sell any data. 3) MS is the only major company to guarantee your privacy. I think these people are getting MS confused with Google. Google's ENTIRE profit model is based on selling user data. Want proof? Go ask Apple why they dumped Google Maps (Lawsuit Vietnam of Google monitoring and selling data), or why Apple has been dumping Google search (Another Lawsuit of Google attaching to Safari browser on iPhone to monitor user activity), Siri uses Bing and Apple is replacing Google with Bing as the default search engine on their devices as the final contracts run out with Google. If you don't like MS that is fine, but at least offer a solid argument against them instead of making crap up. PERIOD. The only 'semi-accurate' thing out of this post is that there was an Xbox App issue that was the result of a bad driver BEFORE Windows 10 was released. If anyone thinks this could be the problem, go into the Xbox App and disable the DVR. (There was a driver that was incorrectly launching/hooking it in with all 3D content even when it was not being used.) BTW If you are citing Reddit, you might want to find a real source.

Also turning radius and incline negotiation features would be nice.

Ok, but is it really important? At some point, you MUST have challenge in the game. Even if it is the healers being a bit more proficient or you working extra hard not to die so you don't have to be Rez'd. From a 'theory' perspective, as you remove complexity from a game, it actually becomes less 'fun'. The struggle and overcoming problems is where you get the feeling of success and pride in what you accomplished. Think of it this way; why not just ask for a 'We Win' clicky that dumps out all the loot at the entrance? It would make things really boring. This game isn't that hard already... Which is why I am cautious about asking for things to make it easier.

We can make this easy for Bioware... Story - No Changes Simply add new advanced classes to each base class. Limitless in theory, with NO additional Story, voice, or content work, while adding in many new playstyles; mixing in, and adding new animations and abilities. Every proposed 'new class' in this thread could easily fit in an existing base class. Example: Teras Kasi fits perfectly into - Consular and Inquisitor. The advanced class choices for Inquisitor would expand to be: Sorcerer Assassin Mauler (Double blade lightsaber and unarmed, one blade of lightsaber turns on/off.) *Darth Maul Style Bonecrusher (Vibroknuckers with unarmed fighting style.) Using the base classes as 'categories', there is almost no limit to the advanced classes that could be added. With just Consular/Inquisitor alone, and off the top of my head, Bioware could add PoleArms, Pikeman, Lore Keeper, Researcher, Diplomat, etc. Balance - Better and Easier Next we give Bioware an idea to stop the 'balancing nightmare', so adding the classes will be easy to balance. Each advanced class would be balanced to two classes, one to be stronger than, and one to be weaker than. This creates a natural balancing mechanism even if there is a huge number of advanced classes. Something easier to imagine: Rock, Paper, Scissors - it is a simple triangulation that is fully balanced. So not only can they easily add new classes and keep them balanced, it is easier than what they are doing now with trying to balance every class directly to 15 other classes. This also will make all classes more exciting, as each class can have more power over 'some' classes, because there will also be 'some' classes it will have less power than. (Balancing 16 classes the way they are doing it now is just insane and makes the classes feel like cookie cutter variations, which they are.)

Um, no and no... All notebooks are designed to run at their peak efficiency, and whoever told you not to game on a laptop is giving out bad advice. They are designed to run as fast as they can, and with regard to overheating, even if the user blocks the air/fan vents, they will protect themselves and shutdown. I have been gaming on notebooks since 1998, using everything from entry level notebooks to gaming class that use full on desktop CPUs that got really hot. ----------------------- As for specification recommendations... You can get the game really well with an i5, 4-8GB of RAM, and a mid to high range dedicated mobile GPU. Use resources like (http://www.notebookcheck.com) to compare how fast the GPU is in the notebooks you are considering, and buy the best you can afford.

Let us make this simple, and give you some tools to do your own research so you can make an informed decision. The basics, listed in order of priority... CPU - Intel i5 or i7 - DO NOT buy a system with an AMD CPU at this time.* GPU - The fastest you can currently afford. (Don't bother with SLI or Crossfire)** RAM - 8GB is a nice number, but as much as you can afford. Monitor - Stick with a 1080p monitor - and get a nice size. Windows 10 64bit (A system with Windows 8.1, and you get a free upgrade to Windows 10) The rest of the computer can vary, as there is overall very little differences that will affect your gameplay. Now, what level of performance are you getting and what should you consider to be the minimum is the next step. This is where you will need to do some work and lookup the specific parts and their performance to ensure they meet your needs. CPU (Main Processor) This is where you will look up the CPU in the computer you are considering: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html Minimum Performance: 6500 Suggested Performance: 7000-8000 GPU (Video Card) This is where you will look up the GPU (Video Card) in the computer you are considering: http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html Minimum Performance: 3000 Suggested Performance: 4500-6000 Here are a couple of additional resources that can help you find what CPU/GPU you should be able to afford, and remember that you can buy a non-gaming computer if it has a good CPU and put in your own GPU/Video Card. (Ensure it has a PCI/e Slot for the GPU and has a 450watt or better power supply.) Best Gaming CPUs for the Money (This is a monthly feature, and it is fairly accurate; however, ignore all AMD suggestions, just skip over them..) http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-cpu-review-overclock,3106.html Best Video Cards for the Money (This is a monthly feature, and it is fairly accurate in picking the best in each price range.) http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-graphics-card-review,3107.html * The reason to avoid AMD CPUs is that they perform very poorly in per core thread operations compared to Intel processors. So in a game like SWTOR, where the game is CPU heavy and is only using two Cores of your CPU most of the time, it is going to run much slower on an AMD CPU. You can see this represented in the single core thread performance tests: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html (Right now in computing in general and in gaming, we want faster CPU cores, not necessarily more CPU cores.) ** SLI and Crossfire are usually more of a headache than the performance they provide. With Windows 10, the concept of SLI and Crossfire will slowly go away as the Windows NT GPU scheduler will handle the GPUs. This was supposed to happen in the days of Vista, but NVidia went bonkers and locked their drivers to prevent Windows from doing GPU SMP as the WDM/WDDM was designed to do. After AMD bought ATI, they also locked their drivers, so even though Windows has supported GPU SMP features since Vista, it hasn't been able to use them until Windows 10, where Microsoft is forcing NVidia and AMD to allow it. (So if you want to run multiple GPUs, wait a bit for the next generation of technology and for now, just buy one faster Video Card, as it will meet your needs.)

A native Mac client would be a considerable amount of work, and even after putting in that work, there is a 99% chance that it is still going to run slower with more issues than running the client by booting into Windows on your Mac. There are key architectural differences between OS X and Windows and there is a reason games run faster on Windows. Extreme example, even a full OpenGL game developed for OS X will probably still run faster on Windows even with a sloppy port. I could give you tech details about the WDM technologies in Windows that give GPU thread control over to the NT kernel or how OS X still using additional frame buffering that slows down all realtime screen writes and on... Your best option is to use as 'little' of BootCamp as you can (seek alternatives) and boot, into Windows 8 or Windows 10 on your Mac hardware. Sadly Apple does intentionally throttle Windows performance with their supplied bootcamp drivers, so avoiding them is essential to get the best Windows performance. (Reference: There was an article that benchmarked Windows 10 a few months back on the new MacBook, and it ran much faster than Windows 8. However, when Apple 'adjusted' the BootCamp a few week later, Windows 10 was once again as slow as Windows 8 on the same MacBook. ..and yes as Mac owner you should complain about these antics to Apple, as they only hurt you.)

Essentially, Undying Rage from Marauder is the SWTOR version of Force Rage. (It has changed a bit over time with the removal of the health loss, etc, but still is functionally similar. PS... I remember playing Academy the day it released. It had brilliant fight mechanics, that I would love to see in a game like SWTOR someday. It also was an early Xbox Live title, and I was lucky enough to meet up with a few new friends, that like me, were trying to find every tick and mechanic of the game. We started before most people, and were good early on, which gave us a bit of godlike fame. We were very much care bears though, and would protect anyone getting picked on, and often spent time teaching others. BTW Never liked or used Rage, always ran a Mix of light/dark abilities, enough to have strong pull/push to keep from getting thrown off a cliff and to counter force manipulations, also a bit of drain for groups, some saber and some choke. My main offense were my dual blades or using the environment to dispatch someone off a cliff. (Miss that game, might have to dust it off because of your post.) BIOWARE would be smart to look at older games like Jedi Academy, as some of the mechanics could be implemented in SWTOR and might offer other ideas for Abilities/Powers. (Even though the game appeared to be realtime, many of the mechanic would work just fine in the SWTOR engine with a synchronized GCD - which was in Academy, but hidden from the users.)

So people are moving from a WEST COAST server to an EAST COAST server to have a better PVP experience. Wow, that is the dumbest thing I have read all day. Has nobody ever heard of latency and how it affect realtime gaming? Latency is one of the main things that gets you killed in PVP, and if you live on the West Coast or have a lower latency (ping time) to the West Coast server and move to an East Coast server, you may have more people to play with, but you will be the idiot getting your face smashed in PVP because of the difference in your connection. East coast players will own you. This needs more attention, because maybe players do not realize they are crippling their gameplay. (East Coast PVPers have to be laughing so hard they are spitting soda.)

Add Damage Taken/Mitigated/Avoided to the Scoreboard. (Or some variation, so we know who was doing a lot of work to keep us alive.) In Warzones, if you are an effective Tank, the only thing that shows this is the Protection statistic, which many players also use to get their badge and aren't using it to help, and they stop taunting/guarding when they hit the cap. However, I know some amazing Tanks that take a ton of damage, do great crowd control and positioning and give their life time and time again to help the team meet an objective. Yet, at the end of the match, their name appears in the middle or at the bottom because they weren't badge farming and they don't have huge damage numbers. Why this matters? MVP votes and respect. I did an informal check of MVP vote differences recently, and people I credit with saving the match would have far less MVP votes than average for their Valor and Character age. So, please show everyone on the scoreboard how much damage was taken/mitigated/avoided, it can't hurt. PS This is also a problem/design-flaw now as not all Protection is shown on the Scoreboard. Utility Protection Buffs that protect teammates in addition to Taunts and Intercede/Guardian Leap protections that aren't accounted for on the board, or accounted for properly. (There is more to tanking and protection than just using Guard.)

Add Force Boost as an alternative to Rocket Boost (Same ability, Same Timer, Let Everyone Use Both.) One thing I dislike about the Legacy Rocket Boost, is that it doesn't offer a thematic variation for force users or decedents of force users. Dressing like a Jedi Master or Sith Lord and having rocket jets shoot out of our sandals just looks odd. Use the Force Speed/Run Animation and maybe add the sparks to the ground like SWG used so doesn't look exactly like Force Speed. -M

Which brings to mind, 'real' choices like Bioware was famous for doing in KOTOR. We all remember killing off or leaving behind companions. I know that a lot of the story and 'hard' choices were removed from the game during development because they didn't want to make things too permanent for players that were coming from tradition MMO structures. So SWTOR originally was to have more consequences and 'optional' story lines that deviated much more than we have seen. One thing specifically I remember the developers talking about was the Companions, and that originally, your story did have the option of Killing them and not letting them join your crew. The option to do this and the story changes that allowed it were removed because they were concerned that players would be upset if they killed off a companion that they might later on have wanted. So, they at least realize this was a mistake or at least should have been allowed later in the story line when players were no longer new and understood the consequences of their choices.

Just a side thought. The 'human' and other races do not age the same in SWTOR as they do on earth; which gives a bit more flexibility in the timeline. Also there are ways of extending life from cybernetics to tricks of the force. PS Back on Earth, with our current understanding of aging, there are children being born now that should live to be 150 to 200 years old.

With the robe up, I don't remember anything that keeps the hair. (You may be able to use a headgear piece that doesn't cover the face and displays under the hood, like the mask/breather you see on Malgus. However, there are numerous Sith robes that have the hood down. Off the top of my head: Destroyer Set (1200 Cartel - expensive) Dire Eliminator (GTN maybe came from Cartel, don't remember) There are also SEVERAL lower level robes that have the hood down and some even look like the Destroyer, but with slightly different coloring. With the outfit designer, you can use the low level robes, and get some really nice looks without spending a ton of credits on the GTN. Shop the GTN for robes, check out the Light/Medium/Heavy armors of all levels, you should find several options. I think there is even a couple of Heroic mission rewards that are low level robes with the hood down if I remember right. (Also check Comm vendors on the planets that have robes, like Tatoonie. -There also may be more information in the guides online, so try a Bing/Google Web/Image search like: swtor hood down robe Good luck, -M

One 'ironic' thing to note, is some of the reasons given for the nerf was that Flyby/Orbital didn't fit thematically with the class, yet on Rishi several of the missions are 'Flyby' strikes as a part of the storyline because the character is a 'Smuggler'. And yes, Bioware, you need to do something, this profession is no longer 'fun'.

...Key words, "WHEN WE ROLLED" the profession, it was a dual melee range class. We can't go back and change it, so you are kind of making the point of why this is a big change for some.

Yes they are different, but the deal specifically also includes LucasArts.

Sadly, we yelled about this on PTS, and it fell on deaf ears. Last night I played a few rounds and teams would pair their Sorc/Oper and support each other, seldom every dying and demolishing the other team. Prior to this patch, a 'smart' sorc would self heal and tank nearly as well as a true tank. Now they can self heal and do more damage and out tank, tanks. The players had to be good or at least know the tricks, but they would find the tank, keep it perpetually stunned, and kill it and move on to heal and damage, and then keep the next threat permanently stunned. Being on the receiving side of this, I was amazed that on a Guardian with Immune to Stuns on Force Leap, that I spent over 40% of the game stunned. There is also a real problem with damage mitigation, I died several times on a Guardian with Blade Storm Shield active having it mitigate nothing and still be active as I died, with a non DOT damage having killed me. So for 1.4, fail. In order to balance out the 'stun' issue, spending 10x as much time stunned in a match... Someone at Bioware doesn't do math well, and it is really not fun. Look forward to the next few days as people tune up their Operatives/Sages and roll over the other teams. (I sometimes wonder with horrid changes like this if developers buy stock in other games, and shove out crap on purpose.)

Developers, implement a simple rule check on changes, treat it like a business... 1) Is this change to help us or to help customers? If it is only to help you, do not do it. 2) Is this change taking away any sense of power or abilities? If so don't do it. 3) Is the change relevant beyond the math weighting of ability? Often ability weighting changes or doesn't always apply, thus making the concessions wrong or poorly implemented. So Cone Knockback? Fails on #1, sure it helps you balance, but doesn't help any customer of the game. Very few players have a problem with it being a full 360 degree knockback. Especially considering the games ability to handle facing direction and lag, this is going to 'hurt' players as it will add more confusion. Right now, doing a Maul or a Force Push in the 'correct' direction is hard in PVP as all it takes is one player to have a crappy connection and even the players on nice 15ms fiber connections get screwed. Force Speed? Does it really outweigh the reduction of the Stun feature? In the match it looks like a nice trade, but in reality, players that were not range stun dependent, will exploit the heck out of this. Sorc/Sage already are tanking in PVE/PVP and now they can FR more often and heal themselves easier. Why not just give them a KILL EVERYONE button? There are some really strange things with the way the stun balance is being implemented, and instead of working to solve the problem in programming by creating a new dynamic, it seems like the developsers are taking the easy/lazy way out, and altering the current ability set to compensate. In the live game, taking a Guardian and a Sage at 50, the Sage will be able to take more damage and outlast the Guardian if they focus on force armor, heals, and distancing from damage. And they can spike far more damage as well. How does this MAKE SENSE, when one is a damage/healing class and the other is supposed to be a tank? This is where the game is off balance. Sure a game cannot ever be truly balanced unless everyone has the same abilities aka HALO. However, in an MMO, cross balancing should be resolution, so that Class A is the balance to Class X, and Class B is the balance to Class Y, and Class C is the balance to Class Z, and on and on. Using this concept, what profession is the 'balance' to sorc/sage? I can't find one that beat them in a duel or one that can out damage them or one that can take more damage than they can. Do you want this to be flavor of the month? And we all spend time rolling sage/sorc and stop playing the other classes? I could be completely wrong, but I don't see the counterpoint or in game proof yet. Just additional thoughts, and still a lot of concern for 1.4 changes.

A lot of this looks rather good, but the changes to sage/sorcerer are a bit unsettling. Having played a tank class a lot lately in PVP, it is the sage/sorcerers that out damage and out live the team if they know what they are doing. One thing is they are often close range players that keep themselves healed and use force run to avoid area effects. So the loss of range on stun won't hurt them; however, the decrease on force run will just make them impervious if they know what they are doing. Force Armor, Heal, Hit HIt, Force Armor, Run, Heal, an don and on. I understand that there will never be balance, but have a good amount of PVP experience and geared well, the only profession I can't get a one on one badge is a sorcerer/sage. This applies to Vanguard, Mercenary, Guardian, Marauder, Assassin, with the only exception that is a small change of winning is an Operative that is Vibroknife specialized and fast hard attacks for a low HP Sage. With defense/damage dynamics in the game, the professions that use force/tech attacks that hit hard, are deadly, as Defense don't apply, and neither does Shield, leaving a stacked tank Guardian or Vanguard essentially as vulnerable as a Marauder, as their attack peel through all your protections. (Maybe take defense and let it apply to tech/force attacks, and not just weapon ranged attacks, as it applies on Tanks. This is why Assassins are so squishy for PVP tanks, unless they cloak and run, as their defense/shield is worthless in most battles, and their regen is only viable in PVE.) Curious if this has been 'observed' or studied on the live server in PVP. Does Bioware monitor or watch gameplay, not just for statistics, but track individual players that seldom die and have incredible damage output? PS It is also annoying to run into one of these Sage/Sorc players, as they spend all their healing on themselves to stay alive, have high damage, and get MVP votes for being good healers, even though they only healed themselves. (In PVP if you don't notice the healer 'healing' you, and their heal level is the highest, you are giving them MVP for keeping themselves alive at your expense.)

This has gotten better, but there is still a problem with rewarding players that do NOT help the overall team goals. Getting the side Medals is easier and more important than objective Medals, which don't accurately reflect the players work in a Zone. In pickup groups, players will run around getting personal objective medals, and at the end of the game will rank high on the list, have a ton of medals, ton of kills, and have a lot of damage, as they are picking off the lower armored players. Yet in the overall game objectives, they were worthless to the team. This doesn't accurately reflect the work of classes like Guardian that is a very hands on class that will spend time slowing, interrupting, and shoving people off nodes, etc. Even though commendations are only rewarded for a certain number of medals, it is still a problem that players will farm for the greatest number of medals and kills. It also doesn't help that the list at the end of the match defaults to sorting players by medals earned. My two cents...

True and not quite... You are skipping over an important point. Win9x (95,98,ME) are all 32bit versions of the base kernel model from Windows 3.11 (3.12). They were very limited and specific OS designs that where written in optimized assembly for x86 and were monolithic kernel designs. (Like Linux.) Needless to say, they had no security or comprehensive architectural structure beyond facilitating the driver model and creating managing the Win32 kernel. Here is the part that people skip, in comparison to NT, the Win9x and WIn3.x OSes are vastly different in design and features. Just comparing the two OS technologies is a bit silly, as it would be like comparing a propeller based airplane from the 1940s to the space shuttle. This also explains why WinME was a rather horrible operating system. When Microsoft created Windows NT 4.0 - it was NOT YET intended to be a consumer desktop OS. Their focus was Servers and high end engineers/CAD, as they did not think that the overhead of the portable C based NT with several kernel layers and an inherently heavy objected based OS model would be able to compete with a tight assembly coded monolithic kernel. However, NT 4.0 surprised Microsoft, because when the system had a bit more RAM (32mb at the time) it outperformed Win95 and WIn98 by 25% consistently. This was a wakeup call for Microsoft as the 'complexity' of hardware interaction and software complexity had hit the threshold of where the 'overhead' of NT was negated by it inherent functionality to compensate for the emerging technology complexities. WinME was originally designed to offer several features that was going to 'incorporate' some of the NT technology into the OS, but with NT 4.0 and the upcoming Win2K running faster, this reverse migration of technology was stopped. The WinME developers still wanted to 'make it work' and put in place very 'heavy' features like System Restore and other things that the Win9x OS was never designed or capable of handling properly. (System Restore for example running on FAT32 was a nightmare and without the journaling and copy on write of NTFS was a massive performance problem, add in the limitations of a monolithic kernel and scheduler and it was painfully slow.) If Microsoft had realized that NT would be as fast by the time 4.0 and 5.0 rolled around, they would have never built WinME, and Win2K would have been the 'XP/Consumer' NT release version. (NT 5.0 development was started in 1996, with the first beta in 1997, so by the time they realized NT 4.0 was running circles around Win95 with 32mb of RAM, the cycle was already too far along to change NT 5.0 with all the big changes like AD, etc.) This is why Win98 was the last OS to perform ok, but it never did do as well as NT 4.0 in terms of performance. Even in later testing when Windows XP was released (NT based), an 80mb 200mhz Pentium system would run 20% faster under WinXP than under Win98 that shipped on the computer. The other piece that has relevance is the 'complexity' of hardware and software has hit another milestone recently. NT was too 'heavy' for devices until recently, but the complexity of technology shifted in the past 3-4 years. This makes WinCE obsolete, just like NT make Win9x obsolete, as NT can now handle today's low end devices better and faster than WinCE. So we are seeing the NT kernel and architectural model pay off once again, as it can run 'lighter' than Android or iOS and still have more features and functionality than Linux or OS X. And this is where an OS engineer would argue the limitations of the *nix model and where simplistic models perform well until they encounter large scale complexity, and then the overhead of managing the complexity outweighs the simplistic speed gains.

It should work this way, but due to the complexity of evaluating how 'interaction' of various components affect performance, it would be impossible to use the 'specifications' to determine the proper settings. Years ago when working as a young IT at an OEM, I was in the component testing team and it was amazing that just a different model hard drive would actually change performance because of a previously unknown and strange interaction it would have with the controller giving specific circumstances. (The problem was in the Hard Drive return monitoring it was doing to the controller and based on voltage variance of the mainboard for example, its performance would reduce by 20X the normal operational speed.) Back then integration testing was less common, so our OEM was able to outperform any major supplier like Gateway or Dell because they would never pair for optimal performance. Today, the levels of conflicts and quirks and optimal pairing of components is off the charts, and even the best OEMs sometimes they will ship a great set of components and sometimes they will screw up and throw in RAM or a GPU that has issues that destroy performance. With Windows 7, this is even a bigger problem, as the OS will compensate for a lot of driver and component interaction 'errors' that keeps the systems running without crashes, that in the pre-NT days and even the WinXP days would have just crashed out the system. So the noticeable crashes that would have created more investigation of component interaction often is overlooked. They SHOULD be doing a simple and controlled 'room' test of the game during the load screen after an update, and they evaluate the CPU and GPU stresses and FPS at several different settings combinations. They are probably not doing this as it would take a few minutes to properly load textures and run though various settings combinations. As for the Porsche analogy, this is true, and dropping in a newer GeForce 680 into an older system will 'help' but will not be indicative of the actual performance the 680 would have in a newer system. However, as I posted, in most systems I tested it shoved the setting to 'Maximum', and this includes an Athlon XP 4600+ with a GeForce GTS 250 and 4gb of RAM. I admit the system is paired well and runs good for this class of machine, and does handle the settings at maximum at 1680x1050 for an average of 30fps. But in comparison to some of the other listed systems, they would have to have a serious issue, when you see an Intel i5 class system with a newer GPU getting shoved all the way to 'LOW' settings. (There is either a problem in the detection, or the user has some settings really messed up or they have a serious hardware issue.)

Curious as to what they are using to assess the settings. Wondering if VRAM detection is maybe again causing an issue, pushing back to the "XP Compatibility" bug option to be selected to get all the VRAM & Virtual VRAM available to the game. (Which is enabled on my systems, as it still provides a 25% fps advantage on average with better graphics because of no low level texture swapping.) It is strange to see some of the massive Video Cards in this thread getting set to low, when a GTS 250 at 1680x1050 was set to High for everything. So see cards 2 to 10 times faster getting set to low is crazy strange. If you haven't, flip the XP Compatibilty flag, as it tricks the game into letting Windows 7 provide more RAM to your Video Card, and like I mention is better quality because you aren't dealing with low level texture swapping, and is faster on lower RAM cards ( sub 1GB VRAM cards). (It has been interesting to see some of the graphic changes in the last couple of updates now that I have had more personal time working with the HeroEngine that our development team has been working with for a while. It is interesting to see where all the SWTOR aspects come from and more in detail of the technology of how the engine works and what features of the engine Bioware is using. Still hold to the position that the engine technology is rather brilliant and the scale up capabilities are impressive.)

Open Restore, and choose a point before you started making these changes. 99% of the items in this list achieve nothing, and many actually harm performance overall. The main tip is to flip the XP Compatibility option on the Shortcut, this gives more GPU RAM to the game. That will speed up low end GPUs and low end VRAM systems, and will allow more RAM for high end systems, resulting in better quality textures being used. Things like 'turn off Aero' 'turn off search' actually lower the overal performance of your computer and make NO impact on SWTOR. The author of this thread is using myths from the Vista era of computing, that have been refuted time and time again. Bing/Google the items yourself, notice the actual technology sites that do performance testing and not just 'assume' tell people to leave these settings alone.