Well it really doesn't matter here what anyone says, the XP die hards won't budge from the thought of losing XP. It still comes down to a simple fact of change, people don't like it, it happened from every previous OS to every new one. Heck I was even one of the ones that LIKED the change from 98se to ME, just for the new netcode that was part of ME. 98se never could talk via the network like ME did, the speeds that I got and ping rates literally were cut by 1/3, BUT I did get more blue screens then normal. However for gaming ME was the way to go, stability wise not so much. When XP came out I saw an OS that SUCKED horribly until some updates came out, i remember some programs and games wouldn't work at all in XP. Upgrading it ment that I needed at least a Pentium 233 or higher with minimum of 256MB of ram...OMG and the Video requirements of my Voodoo 2 just sucked at that point. God I couldn't play half my games the way I did on ME or 98, and programs hated XP I remember Easy CD creator being a biatch to get working in XP originally oh and lets not talk about CD Burner drivers...MY GOD, we should have stayed with ME or 98. Oh wait, SP1 and 2 came out and a few years pass and how many people would go back to 98se now? It all boils down to people not wanting change, the amount of CPU Cycles for DRM...blah blah blah, Memory Usage...BLAH BLAH BLAH, size of OS on hard drive.... BLAH BLAH BLAH. Look at dos, it fit on a FLOPPY DISK, not a 1.44MB disk but a 320k 5'25" disk and it took time to load. Your OS was under 320K to load???? Go up from there what is windows 3.11 to load 25 x 720k disk, and 95 is like 40 x 1.44MB...OMG soon the OS will be the entire HDD. Technology advances, OS's advance with them, they follow what people ask for in alot of cases and what we need to move to the next level in technology. DX10 requires Vista, I am not saying it is the end all beat all reason to upgrade but wouldn't it be nice to fully use your spanky new video card? Everyone screams that windows is to unsecure in XP, so they pile on the security in Vista, now everyone feels choked, well that is what we wanted, thankfully you can disable or modify most of the security in Vista.
What is happening is the same thing that happens when anything is changed, Windows Vista will live on, windows 7 will come out and so will Windows 2020, but each time we will have THOUSANDS of people out there that don't want to change. And every time all those thousands of people will change with the times because something will require them to eventually. It is time for microsoft to full cut its backward compatability and start fresh, and I think that is what they are really trying to do with Vista. Once the shed all there backward compatability I really believe no one will have anything to complain about.
Oh as for those saying that 3rd party drivers are not allowed, has anyone seen the third party drivers for Creatives equipment to give better and all functionality to there hardware in vista. It is a good read on the Creative forums, but I know Creative threatened the guy who was writing these drivers and he has quit now but just goes to show that 3rd party drivers are allowed in vista you just have to know what your doing.
I say GO VISTA, and I can't wait for the next evolution of Windows, i will be leading the change there just as I did with Vista. It will be a fun ride, and it will be more fun to hear all the people screaming that they still want to stay with Vista now or even still XP. I really believe Windows 7 will be the next ME, they are trying to bridge the gap between xp and vista just like ME tried to do between 98 and 2000 at the time then XP was released after they figured out what they did wrong. I really believe Vista is the Windows 2000 of today, and the next version after Windows 7 will be the XP of tommorow, but until then I am happy with Windows Vista Ultimate X64.
XP is overall better and works faster and more reliably.
Let me rephrase this to my experience:
XP looks overall uglier, if you have a current spec computer (as the OP does) there won't really be a speed difference, and regarding reliability I have been running vista x64 for more than 1 year and it has been rock solid.
Pay 300€ to get a OS what runs more or less like XP, but with some problems with some software, and that needs more resources.. WOW YES I'M FOR IT.
You talk about vista being the future and to just accept it, etc.. etc.., well I dont really remember, did ME fail as an operating system?
You obviously didn't read my full post turnipz....I said ME was trying to bridge the gap between 98 and 2000, then they brought out xp. I never said ME was a success, it was a failure on a buisness level but alot of people who played network games found the same thing I did, that the netcode in ME was superior to 98, and the same as 2000. Yes it had its issues, however I suggested that Windows 7 will be the the next ME trying to bridge the gap between xp and Vista. Then the next OS that comes out will be the next xp, If you look back to how long Windows 2000 stayed around after XP came out and then use my thought process of Windows 7 = Windows ME and Windows Vista = Windows 2000 then the next version of windows lets say Windows 8 = Windows XP.
"A similar (but a bit more specialized) term to DRM is Trusted Computing. The term is intentionally misleading. It does not try to improve the security of the user, but rather wants to ensure that the user can be “trusted”."
Interesting stuff with the DRM, im wondering what the vista fanboys here will say about it.
That I guess in the end it won't matter, companies will move to vista, because Microsoft pushes them to, and everyone else will do the same.
I think hackers/crackers/pirates will just have to work harder.
But everyone will move to Vista or the next OS. Support for XP will stop sometime. I never really liked clinging to the past just cause I felt things worked, just make your present and future better.
As for performance issues due to DRM, honestly I have not notice any. I read more about hollywood than software, but I figure they are close. Honestly it might use "precious" clock cycles, *GASP* but frankly many people don't care.
Agree, people will end up using vista, as I am. however, people here who run MMO clients *should* perhaps care about precious CPU cycles, specially if the new MMOS around the corner do use multiple cores.
He even goes into MS' rebuttal which was pretty much saying that apple OS does it too... BTW, MS does not deny they do DRM in Vista. And no it's NOT done on XP. You can, for example install 3rd party driver in XP! Echo cancellation isn't hindered in XP as it is in Vista (because of DRM).
Don't believe in opinions, read up and make up your own mind. In the end, it may very well be that you couldn't care less about DRM and vista will do great.
People have been digging out that link since before Vista was released and it's as big a crock of BS as it was then. 3rd party drivers are allowed because they are the biggest reason for crashes in XP. Someone here mentioned "trusted platform", yet if anyone did any real research they would know that vista only uses Trusted platform for bitlocker. People seriously need to stop with conspiracy theories and start living in reality.
You dispute a single point, why 3rd party drivers aren't allowed, giving your personal opinion of why, and then go ahead and claim that the whole huge article with many technical details is "crock of BS."
"Will Windows Vista content protection features increase CPU resource consumption?
Yes. However, the use of additional CPU cycles is inevitable..."
Note that the question was specific about "content protection features" and the answer was "yes."
BTW, what the hell is multithreading in a OS?! Are you referring to that Vista can use multiple cores? So can XP, and every other OS nowadays! Processes are given cpu cyles by the kernel scheduler and if the OS can use multiple cores then so can its scheduler. Multithreading is a single process concept (single program). A game, for example, can be multithreaded or not, depending on design.
If a game (like EQ2) is single-threaded, there is nothing Vista (or nay OS) can do to magically make it multithreaded. The application has to be modified to be made multithreaded.
1) You post a blog about blue ray and hd-dvd, systems that have DRM requirements in any system that plays them, even things like blue-ray players.
2) The very next paragraph after the phrase you quoted say that the same protection requirements are in XP
3) Vista is multi-threaded and takes full advantage of multiple core cpu's, XP does not.
You can twist words all you want, it won't make them true.
"A similar (but a bit more specialized) term to DRM is Trusted Computing. The term is intentionally misleading. It does not try to improve the security of the user, but rather wants to ensure that the user can be “trusted”."
Interesting stuff with the DRM, im wondering what the vista fanboys here will say about it.
That I guess in the end it won't matter, companies will move to vista, because Microsoft pushes them to, and everyone else will do the same.
I think hackers/crackers/pirates will just have to work harder.
But everyone will move to Vista or the next OS. Support for XP will stop sometime. I never really liked clinging to the past just cause I felt things worked, just make your present and future better.
As for performance issues due to DRM, honestly I have not notice any. I read more about hollywood than software, but I figure they are close. Honestly it might use "precious" clock cycles, *GASP* but frankly many people don't care.
Agree, people will end up using vista, as I am. however, people here who run MMO clients *should* perhaps care about precious CPU cycles, specially if the new MMOS around the corner do use multiple cores.
He even goes into MS' rebuttal which was pretty much saying that apple OS does it too... BTW, MS does not deny they do DRM in Vista. And no it's NOT done on XP. You can, for example install 3rd party driver in XP! Echo cancellation isn't hindered in XP as it is in Vista (because of DRM).
Don't believe in opinions, read up and make up your own mind. In the end, it may very well be that you couldn't care less about DRM and vista will do great.
People have been digging out that link since before Vista was released and it's as big a crock of BS as it was then. 3rd party drivers are allowed because they are the biggest reason for crashes in XP. Someone here mentioned "trusted platform", yet if anyone did any real research they would know that vista only uses Trusted platform for bitlocker. People seriously need to stop with conspiracy theories and start living in reality.
You dispute a single point, why 3rd party drivers aren't allowed, giving your personal opinion of why, and then go ahead and claim that the whole huge article with many technical details is "crock of BS."
"Will Windows Vista content protection features increase CPU resource consumption?
Yes. However, the use of additional CPU cycles is inevitable..."
Note that the question was specific about "content protection features" and the answer was "yes."
BTW, what the hell is multithreading in a OS?! Are you referring to that Vista can use multiple cores? So can XP, and every other OS nowadays! Processes are given cpu cyles by the kernel scheduler and if the OS can use multiple cores then so can its scheduler. Multithreading is a single process concept (single program). A game, for example, can be multithreaded or not, depending on design.
If a game (like EQ2) is single-threaded, there is nothing Vista (or nay OS) can do to magically make it multithreaded. The application has to be modified to be made multithreaded.
1) You post a blog about blue ray and hd-dvd, systems that have DRM requirements in any system that plays them, even things like blue-ray players.
2) The very next paragraph after the phrase you quoted say that the same protection requirements are in XP
3) Vista is multi-threaded and takes full advantage of multiple core cpu's, XP does not.
You can twist words all you want, it won't make them true.
Do you have any comment concerning the bit I quoted (from a MS engineer on vistablog) about spending CPU cycles on DRM-related stuff?
#1 google DRM and vista and read (lots of info to whoever is interested)
#2 yes it does. Microsoft has been adding a little bit here and there on every SP. But it's not embedded in the Kernel OS like it is in Vista. That's the whole point of it, that you are paying for (with your hardware) for stuff you don't want (permanent DRM controls embedded in the OS). XP didn't have any problems by allowing installation of 3rd party drivers (which could be used to bypass DRM), or with echo cancellation. You do know that XP has outperformed VISTA on every test for gaming and applications that demand raw performance right? http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/ (google xp vs vista focusing on gaming)
#3 this is my job, I write server software in C++ that depends on multiple cores and multiple threads to achieve the required performance. Threads are a a facility provided by the OS kernel. Yes, the OS itself can be multithreaded, some'd call them tasks however. Now, I've found a couple of improvements Vista has concerning the scheduler http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc162494.aspx if that is what you referred to, it sounds good, but nothing impressive or that can be called "Vista is multitithreaded." I don't even know what that means?! Is it the kernel that is multithreaded? Is the threading facility provided by the kernel that has been improved (which the article above implies)? That Vista can fully use multi-core machines is pure PR talk to me. THere is no such a thing as Fully use multiple core/cpus. At some point resources need to be shared and tasks will get serialized.
BTW, talking about the links, and twisting words... I'm the only one providing links to back up what I say..
2) Vista is already scheduled to be replaced by Windows 7 (aka Vienna) which last week Microsoft will push out in 2009 due to low sales of Vista (reported by CNN Technologies by a MS representative)
3) XP still runs faster in write/rewrite/data transfer than vista, i saw comparisons on Tom's hardware the other day ( i would search out the links but i am feeding my son a bottle)
4) MOST corporations refuse to go to Vista due to network speeds being alot slower than XPs, as well as MANY incompatibility issues
5) Vista's main appeal is the eye candy of DX10, which XP cannot support (While yes XP can emulate certain features that simulate dx10 it is not)
6) Vista is definitely more of a resource hog, and it is NOT the evolution of OS's, in fact, Microsoft is flaunting the fact that Windows 7 is going to be more streamlined, use less resources, and be faster and more stable the Vista ever was.
You know I have being running windows xp 32bit up untill xp 64bit came out, and the day it came out I started useing it. I ran into ALOT of issues to start off with xp 64, mostly driver compatability and finding programs that would run on it like anitvirus software, so as a result I went back to xp 32 for a few months then back to xp 64 and I haven't looked back. Now when vista came out all I could say was, ohhhh pretty...well actually I realized at the time no computers being released had the power to run vista 32 or 64 properly. I put it on my machine anyways at the time to see how well it would kill my computer, and boy was I right. I had at the time a AMD x64 2200+ with 2GB of memory and a fairly good Nvidia card at the time...and WOW did ultimate 32 and 64 kill that machine. I laughed so hard that within 10 minutes I reformated and reinstalled XP x64, and stayed that way for about 3 months when it was time to upgrade. I upgraded to an E6600 just like the OP with 2GB of memory with an Nvida 7950GT and that is when I realized the hardware should be able to run Vista. So I installed Vista Ultimate 32 and used it for about 2 months, I did a few tests comparing this machine to an XP 64 load on another HDD and found about a 15% decrease in performance on alot of games. I attributed this to hard drive speed and just congestion from the OS itself since I went from a SATA to an IDE drive at the time. Then I loaded Vista ulitimate x64, and found that the decrease in performance from XP 64 to Vista x64 was only about 10%, so I made Vista ultimate x64 my primary OS, and I found everything worked on it with a little work. I will admit there might have being a few small issues, C&C 3 would not run unless you performed the patch, even then it would not put my shortcuts for the game anywhere so you would have to hunt for them on the HDD, but it would run fine after that. So at this point I had decided Vista was the way to go and specifically Vista x64, it just seemed to have less issues to me. So here we are almost a year later and I have just upgraded my computer to a intel Q6600 with 4 GB of memory and an 8800GT card and I will tell you it improved Vista quite a bit. I think it was more the memory that improved it but at this point I find it a chore to go back to XP. I use XP at work and find it clunky now, not user friendly. As for performance I refuse to load XP onto this machine because it is a thing of the past and I want to learn Vista the way I know XP. If it won't work in Vista now I haven't seen it, I have gotten all my games to work fine in Vista X64, hardly any issues there. I had to update my burning software going to vista, but other then that it works perfectly for me. I don't have SP1 installed yet either so I can't see it killing my computer at all, only improvements from here on out. Also for those people complaining about Vista compared to XP, this argument has happened so many times before, "Dos is more efficient then windows 3.1", "windows 95 are you kidding me 3.11 is the way to go", "what the heck 98?? Why would I get rid of my perfectly good windows 95", "Yea right XP sucks compared to 98se it is so slow I need a Pentium 2 to run it with 256MB of RAM JESUS!!"...the arguments will keep comming up as long as people hate change. I quote a GM at a computer store I used to work at for this, "The number one returned item in the store are MAC's. Why, because people know Windows they are not patient enough to learn the MAC OS, so they return it with the 14 days for a full refund." Change scares people and the XP to Vista change is huge, but DX10 is nice so it is worth it right there. Also no matter what you think of Vista it is here to stay, they may come out with another version of Windows but do you really think they will move away from the Vista architecture? I think not. SO OP to give you an answer to upgrading to Vista, do it. Your machine can now handle it and once you get used to it you won't WANT to go back to XP.
Thank you, that's what I tell all my customer's that are afraid to upgrade. This happens every time Microsoft releases a new OS.
Vista is fine as long as you don't try and put it on your 5 year old machine, and spend more then $300 on a new computer. XP is only worth it when buying a mac and using bootcamp. I laugh at the people who purchase a laptop with vista on it, try and install XP over it and then come in and complain when a piece of hardware doesn't work properly.
The fact is
You can spend less then $1000 and get a gaming rig that will run any game on high settings
The extra speed you get with XP doesn't matter and the 10% increase with SP4 is just Microsofts way of milking us for more money (IE - buying a cpu with vista then buying XP to put on it)
Eventually games will have directx10 as a requirement
Windows 7 is not your savior and will have just as many problems when it comes out in 2011
Oh and to the guy above me
Vista is the fastest selling OS ever for Microsoft so I don't know how you call that having bad sales
Windows 7 will not come out in 2009
When it does come out it will have just as many bugs as Vista and you will probably be back here calling Windows 7 the new ME and refuse to upgrade from Vista.
I remember people complaining that XP was a resource hog too and that they couldn't run it on the default settings (had to turn it back to classic).
Ive enjoyeed Vista since i got it, of course part of that is having the system to use it and use it smoothly. The UI is better, the search tool, and oh yes DX10...sorry but if u havent played a game in each diff setting before u dont understand, but yes in my opinion DX10 is more than worth a Visa upgrade, and to the guy above me, i dont know what you have done, but I play Vanguard and such too, never had a problem, can even play Istaria online if i feel like goofing around with things so...ya Vista is in better shape then when it came out, and yes DX10 is just that nice, and really i cant say as i have noticed a massive performance differnece so long as u have decent stuff in ure PC. I know there are websites that have timed and clocked performance diff. in Vista and XP...if u so hard up for a lil extra performance for a sub par interface and overal ugly UI and no DX10 the stick with XP. But honestly every update makes in my opinion a better OS even more enjoyable. Peace.
I went out last night and bought the OEM version of Windows Vista Home Premium. I also purchased 2 2gb DDR2 memory modules. I did a clean install and finally finished patching everything up and reinstalling programs this morning. I just logged back into LOTRO, and WOW what a difference! I'm running the game in windows mode 1600 x 1024 on ultra high settings with Direct X 10 enabled.
The game play is super smooth, and the graphical difference is astounding. I was in the old forest area of the game and I immediately noticed the much greater detail in the shadows from the trees. It was even better when the trees started swaying in the wind. The shadows moved as you'd expect in real life. Everything seems much more crisp and realistic. I am thoroughly impressed and still screenshots just do not seem to do justice to a Direct X 10 enabled game. I'm loading up Crysis right now. I can't wait to see how that one looks!
Anywho, thank you to all for giving advice / opinions. I'm not overly techie, but I know what I like when I see it. This is good! Real good!
UPDATE - I went out last night and bought the OEM version of Windows Vista Home Premium. I also purchased 2 2gb DDR2 memory modules. I did a clean install and finally finished patching everything up and reinstalling programs this morning. I just logged back into LOTRO, and WOW what a difference! I'm running the game in windows mode 1600 x 1024 on ultra high settings with Direct X 10 enabled. The game play is super smooth, and the graphical difference is astounding. I was in the old forest area of the game and I immediately noticed the much greater detail in the shadows from the trees. It was even better when the trees started swaying in the wind. The shadows moved as you'd expect in real life. Everything seems much more crisp and realistic. I am thoroughly impressed and still screenshots just do not seem to do justice to a Direct X 10 enabled game. I'm loading up Crysis right now. I can't wait to see how that one looks! Anywho, thank you to all for giving advice / opinions. I'm not overly techie, but I know what I like when I see it. This is good! Real good!
Glad you're impressed, I feel the exact same way as I've only been playing DX10 enabled games for less than two weeks now. LOTRO's a favorite (graphically).
SP1 didn't help vista any. It's still a bad OS. The only upgrade you should need is your windows Xp Disk.
All of this probably from some guy who has never really used vista. My system blows and cannot handle vista well, but I hardly find that a reason to bash it. I have used it at a friends house who had quite the top of the line stuff and it seemed as if it had little to no flaws. Honestly, as stated before, this arguement has been going on since the release of windows. Everyone was saying XP would no way top 2000, but did it? yes, the fact is you have to upgrade for newer technology. So, how about you get your head out of your ass and stop trolling, if you're gonna comment, at least put some logic into it...thanks! But on topic, If my system could handle Vista I would be on it in a second, I agree the UI is nice, even with my crappy system vista did about as good of a job running my games as XP did, and this was pre-SP1. So i know you said you were sold by this point, but in no way could i not recommend it.
Originally posted by Deathstrike2 So my question is, did SP1 improve Vista enough to make it the best choice for gamers or should I just stick with XP Pro?
It doesnt improve it.. in fact some say it makes it worse...
But I have Vista Home Premium and I have no problems with anything.
I've had Vista since the day it was released, and apart from a few missing drivers at launch I've never had a problem. The main problem they had, which was fixed long ago, was that you'd get a lot of 'display driver has stopped responding' errors with some games. This was because of the way the games were programmed more than Vista, but a little tweaking and they managed to remove that problem.
I don't see anything wrong with Vista, and compared to the old XP it looks and acts amazingly. I could never go back to XP after using Vista, it just looks and feels too outdated. So seriously, ignore the negatives people spout, most if not all of them don't even have Vista and are just jumping on the 'lets insult this OS' bandwagon. Take it from someone who's used it since Day 1. Its perfect.
Comments
Well it really doesn't matter here what anyone says, the XP die hards won't budge from the thought of losing XP. It still comes down to a simple fact of change, people don't like it, it happened from every previous OS to every new one. Heck I was even one of the ones that LIKED the change from 98se to ME, just for the new netcode that was part of ME. 98se never could talk via the network like ME did, the speeds that I got and ping rates literally were cut by 1/3, BUT I did get more blue screens then normal. However for gaming ME was the way to go, stability wise not so much. When XP came out I saw an OS that SUCKED horribly until some updates came out, i remember some programs and games wouldn't work at all in XP. Upgrading it ment that I needed at least a Pentium 233 or higher with minimum of 256MB of ram...OMG and the Video requirements of my Voodoo 2 just sucked at that point. God I couldn't play half my games the way I did on ME or 98, and programs hated XP I remember Easy CD creator being a biatch to get working in XP originally oh and lets not talk about CD Burner drivers...MY GOD, we should have stayed with ME or 98. Oh wait, SP1 and 2 came out and a few years pass and how many people would go back to 98se now? It all boils down to people not wanting change, the amount of CPU Cycles for DRM...blah blah blah, Memory Usage...BLAH BLAH BLAH, size of OS on hard drive.... BLAH BLAH BLAH. Look at dos, it fit on a FLOPPY DISK, not a 1.44MB disk but a 320k 5'25" disk and it took time to load. Your OS was under 320K to load???? Go up from there what is windows 3.11 to load 25 x 720k disk, and 95 is like 40 x 1.44MB...OMG soon the OS will be the entire HDD. Technology advances, OS's advance with them, they follow what people ask for in alot of cases and what we need to move to the next level in technology. DX10 requires Vista, I am not saying it is the end all beat all reason to upgrade but wouldn't it be nice to fully use your spanky new video card? Everyone screams that windows is to unsecure in XP, so they pile on the security in Vista, now everyone feels choked, well that is what we wanted, thankfully you can disable or modify most of the security in Vista.
What is happening is the same thing that happens when anything is changed, Windows Vista will live on, windows 7 will come out and so will Windows 2020, but each time we will have THOUSANDS of people out there that don't want to change. And every time all those thousands of people will change with the times because something will require them to eventually. It is time for microsoft to full cut its backward compatability and start fresh, and I think that is what they are really trying to do with Vista. Once the shed all there backward compatability I really believe no one will have anything to complain about.
Oh as for those saying that 3rd party drivers are not allowed, has anyone seen the third party drivers for Creatives equipment to give better and all functionality to there hardware in vista. It is a good read on the Creative forums, but I know Creative threatened the guy who was writing these drivers and he has quit now but just goes to show that 3rd party drivers are allowed in vista you just have to know what your doing.
I say GO VISTA, and I can't wait for the next evolution of Windows, i will be leading the change there just as I did with Vista. It will be a fun ride, and it will be more fun to hear all the people screaming that they still want to stay with Vista now or even still XP. I really believe Windows 7 will be the next ME, they are trying to bridge the gap between xp and vista just like ME tried to do between 98 and 2000 at the time then XP was released after they figured out what they did wrong. I really believe Vista is the Windows 2000 of today, and the next version after Windows 7 will be the XP of tommorow, but until then I am happy with Windows Vista Ultimate X64.
You talk about vista being the future and to just accept it, etc.. etc.., well I dont really remember, did ME fail as an operating system?
Let me rephrase this to my experience:
XP looks overall uglier, if you have a current spec computer (as the OP does) there won't really be a speed difference, and regarding reliability I have been running vista x64 for more than 1 year and it has been rock solid.
Pay 300€ to get a OS what runs more or less like XP, but with some problems with some software, and that needs more resources.. WOW YES I'M FOR IT.
That I guess in the end it won't matter, companies will move to vista, because Microsoft pushes them to, and everyone else will do the same.
I think hackers/crackers/pirates will just have to work harder.
But everyone will move to Vista or the next OS. Support for XP will stop sometime. I never really liked clinging to the past just cause I felt things worked, just make your present and future better.
As for performance issues due to DRM, honestly I have not notice any. I read more about hollywood than software, but I figure they are close. Honestly it might use "precious" clock cycles, *GASP* but frankly many people don't care.
Agree, people will end up using vista, as I am. however, people here who run MMO clients *should* perhaps care about precious CPU cycles, specially if the new MMOS around the corner do use multiple cores.
lots of information here, many facts:
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
He even goes into MS' rebuttal which was pretty much saying that apple OS does it too... BTW, MS does not deny they do DRM in Vista. And no it's NOT done on XP. You can, for example install 3rd party driver in XP! Echo cancellation isn't hindered in XP as it is in Vista (because of DRM).
Don't believe in opinions, read up and make up your own mind. In the end, it may very well be that you couldn't care less about DRM and vista will do great.
People have been digging out that link since before Vista was released and it's as big a crock of BS as it was then. 3rd party drivers are allowed because they are the biggest reason for crashes in XP. Someone here mentioned "trusted platform", yet if anyone did any real research they would know that vista only uses Trusted platform for bitlocker. People seriously need to stop with conspiracy theories and start living in reality.
You dispute a single point, why 3rd party drivers aren't allowed, giving your personal opinion of why, and then go ahead and claim that the whole huge article with many technical details is "crock of BS."
For whoever is interested, this is Microsoft's Official "rebuttal:" http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/01/20/windows-vista-content-protection-twenty-questions-and-answers.aspx
"Will Windows Vista content protection features increase CPU resource consumption?
Yes. However, the use of additional CPU cycles is inevitable..."
Note that the question was specific about "content protection features" and the answer was "yes."
BTW, what the hell is multithreading in a OS?!
Are you referring to that Vista can use multiple cores? So can XP, and every other OS nowadays! Processes are given cpu cyles by the kernel scheduler and if the OS can use multiple cores then so can its scheduler. Multithreading is a single process concept (single program). A game, for example, can be multithreaded or not, depending on design.
If a game (like EQ2) is single-threaded, there is nothing Vista (or nay OS) can do to magically make it multithreaded. The application has to be modified to be made multithreaded.
1) You post a blog about blue ray and hd-dvd, systems that have DRM requirements in any system that plays them, even things like blue-ray players.2) The very next paragraph after the phrase you quoted say that the same protection requirements are in XP
3) Vista is multi-threaded and takes full advantage of multiple core cpu's, XP does not.
You can twist words all you want, it won't make them true.
member of imminst.org
That I guess in the end it won't matter, companies will move to vista, because Microsoft pushes them to, and everyone else will do the same.
I think hackers/crackers/pirates will just have to work harder.
But everyone will move to Vista or the next OS. Support for XP will stop sometime. I never really liked clinging to the past just cause I felt things worked, just make your present and future better.
As for performance issues due to DRM, honestly I have not notice any. I read more about hollywood than software, but I figure they are close. Honestly it might use "precious" clock cycles, *GASP* but frankly many people don't care.
Agree, people will end up using vista, as I am. however, people here who run MMO clients *should* perhaps care about precious CPU cycles, specially if the new MMOS around the corner do use multiple cores.
lots of information here, many facts:
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
He even goes into MS' rebuttal which was pretty much saying that apple OS does it too... BTW, MS does not deny they do DRM in Vista. And no it's NOT done on XP. You can, for example install 3rd party driver in XP! Echo cancellation isn't hindered in XP as it is in Vista (because of DRM).
Don't believe in opinions, read up and make up your own mind. In the end, it may very well be that you couldn't care less about DRM and vista will do great.
People have been digging out that link since before Vista was released and it's as big a crock of BS as it was then. 3rd party drivers are allowed because they are the biggest reason for crashes in XP. Someone here mentioned "trusted platform", yet if anyone did any real research they would know that vista only uses Trusted platform for bitlocker. People seriously need to stop with conspiracy theories and start living in reality.
You dispute a single point, why 3rd party drivers aren't allowed, giving your personal opinion of why, and then go ahead and claim that the whole huge article with many technical details is "crock of BS."
For whoever is interested, this is Microsoft's Official "rebuttal:" http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/01/20/windows-vista-content-protection-twenty-questions-and-answers.aspx
"Will Windows Vista content protection features increase CPU resource consumption?
Yes. However, the use of additional CPU cycles is inevitable..."
Note that the question was specific about "content protection features" and the answer was "yes."
BTW, what the hell is multithreading in a OS?!
Are you referring to that Vista can use multiple cores? So can XP, and every other OS nowadays! Processes are given cpu cyles by the kernel scheduler and if the OS can use multiple cores then so can its scheduler. Multithreading is a single process concept (single program). A game, for example, can be multithreaded or not, depending on design.
If a game (like EQ2) is single-threaded, there is nothing Vista (or nay OS) can do to magically make it multithreaded. The application has to be modified to be made multithreaded.
1) You post a blog about blue ray and hd-dvd, systems that have DRM requirements in any system that plays them, even things like blue-ray players.2) The very next paragraph after the phrase you quoted say that the same protection requirements are in XP
3) Vista is multi-threaded and takes full advantage of multiple core cpu's, XP does not.
You can twist words all you want, it won't make them true.
Do you have any comment concerning the bit I quoted (from a MS engineer on vistablog) about spending CPU cycles on DRM-related stuff?
#1 google DRM and vista and read (lots of info to whoever is interested)
#2 yes it does. Microsoft has been adding a little bit here and there on every SP. But it's not embedded in the Kernel OS like it is in Vista. That's the whole point of it, that you are paying for (with your hardware) for stuff you don't want (permanent DRM controls embedded in the OS). XP didn't have any problems by allowing installation of 3rd party drivers (which could be used to bypass DRM), or with echo cancellation. You do know that XP has outperformed VISTA on every test for gaming and applications that demand raw performance right? http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/ (google xp vs vista focusing on gaming)
#3 this is my job, I write server software in C++ that depends on multiple cores and multiple threads to achieve the required performance. Threads are a a facility provided by the OS kernel. Yes, the OS itself can be multithreaded, some'd call them tasks however. Now, I've found a couple of improvements Vista has concerning the scheduler http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc162494.aspx if that is what you referred to, it sounds good, but nothing impressive or that can be called "Vista is multitithreaded." I don't even know what that means?! Is it the kernel that is multithreaded? Is the threading facility provided by the kernel that has been improved (which the article above implies)? That Vista can fully use multi-core machines is pure PR talk to me. THere is no such a thing as Fully use multiple core/cpus. At some point resources need to be shared and tasks will get serialized.
BTW, talking about the links, and twisting words... I'm the only one providing links to back up what I say..
Vista was created for a two year cycle. The replacement O/S was scheduled to come out in 2009.
You guys really need to get your facts together
1) all OS's these days run multithreading
2) Vista is already scheduled to be replaced by Windows 7 (aka Vienna) which last week Microsoft will push out in 2009 due to low sales of Vista (reported by CNN Technologies by a MS representative)
3) XP still runs faster in write/rewrite/data transfer than vista, i saw comparisons on Tom's hardware the other day ( i would search out the links but i am feeding my son a bottle)
4) MOST corporations refuse to go to Vista due to network speeds being alot slower than XPs, as well as MANY incompatibility issues
5) Vista's main appeal is the eye candy of DX10, which XP cannot support (While yes XP can emulate certain features that simulate dx10 it is not)
6) Vista is definitely more of a resource hog, and it is NOT the evolution of OS's, in fact, Microsoft is flaunting the fact that Windows 7 is going to be more streamlined, use less resources, and be faster and more stable the Vista ever was.
Thank you, that's what I tell all my customer's that are afraid to upgrade. This happens every time Microsoft releases a new OS.
Vista is fine as long as you don't try and put it on your 5 year old machine, and spend more then $300 on a new computer. XP is only worth it when buying a mac and using bootcamp. I laugh at the people who purchase a laptop with vista on it, try and install XP over it and then come in and complain when a piece of hardware doesn't work properly.
The fact is
You can spend less then $1000 and get a gaming rig that will run any game on high settings
The extra speed you get with XP doesn't matter and the 10% increase with SP4 is just Microsofts way of milking us for more money (IE - buying a cpu with vista then buying XP to put on it)
Eventually games will have directx10 as a requirement
Windows 7 is not your savior and will have just as many problems when it comes out in 2011
Oh and to the guy above me
Vista is the fastest selling OS ever for Microsoft so I don't know how you call that having bad sales
Windows 7 will not come out in 2009
When it does come out it will have just as many bugs as Vista and you will probably be back here calling Windows 7 the new ME and refuse to upgrade from Vista.
I remember people complaining that XP was a resource hog too and that they couldn't run it on the default settings (had to turn it back to classic).
Oh, people will never learn.
Ive enjoyeed Vista since i got it, of course part of that is having the system to use it and use it smoothly. The UI is better, the search tool, and oh yes DX10...sorry but if u havent played a game in each diff setting before u dont understand, but yes in my opinion DX10 is more than worth a Visa upgrade, and to the guy above me, i dont know what you have done, but I play Vanguard and such too, never had a problem, can even play Istaria online if i feel like goofing around with things so...ya Vista is in better shape then when it came out, and yes DX10 is just that nice, and really i cant say as i have noticed a massive performance differnece so long as u have decent stuff in ure PC. I know there are websites that have timed and clocked performance diff. in Vista and XP...if u so hard up for a lil extra performance for a sub par interface and overal ugly UI and no DX10 the stick with XP. But honestly every update makes in my opinion a better OS even more enjoyable. Peace.
UPDATE -
I went out last night and bought the OEM version of Windows Vista Home Premium. I also purchased 2 2gb DDR2 memory modules. I did a clean install and finally finished patching everything up and reinstalling programs this morning. I just logged back into LOTRO, and WOW what a difference! I'm running the game in windows mode 1600 x 1024 on ultra high settings with Direct X 10 enabled.
The game play is super smooth, and the graphical difference is astounding. I was in the old forest area of the game and I immediately noticed the much greater detail in the shadows from the trees. It was even better when the trees started swaying in the wind. The shadows moved as you'd expect in real life. Everything seems much more crisp and realistic. I am thoroughly impressed and still screenshots just do not seem to do justice to a Direct X 10 enabled game. I'm loading up Crysis right now. I can't wait to see how that one looks!
Anywho, thank you to all for giving advice / opinions. I'm not overly techie, but I know what I like when I see it. This is good! Real good!
Glad you're impressed, I feel the exact same way as I've only been playing DX10 enabled games for less than two weeks now. LOTRO's a favorite (graphically).
All of this probably from some guy who has never really used vista. My system blows and cannot handle vista well, but I hardly find that a reason to bash it. I have used it at a friends house who had quite the top of the line stuff and it seemed as if it had little to no flaws. Honestly, as stated before, this arguement has been going on since the release of windows. Everyone was saying XP would no way top 2000, but did it? yes, the fact is you have to upgrade for newer technology. So, how about you get your head out of your ass and stop trolling, if you're gonna comment, at least put some logic into it...thanks! But on topic, If my system could handle Vista I would be on it in a second, I agree the UI is nice, even with my crappy system vista did about as good of a job running my games as XP did, and this was pre-SP1. So i know you said you were sold by this point, but in no way could i not recommend it.
It doesnt improve it.. in fact some say it makes it worse...
But I have Vista Home Premium and I have no problems with anything.
I've had Vista since the day it was released, and apart from a few missing drivers at launch I've never had a problem. The main problem they had, which was fixed long ago, was that you'd get a lot of 'display driver has stopped responding' errors with some games. This was because of the way the games were programmed more than Vista, but a little tweaking and they managed to remove that problem.
I don't see anything wrong with Vista, and compared to the old XP it looks and acts amazingly. I could never go back to XP after using Vista, it just looks and feels too outdated. So seriously, ignore the negatives people spout, most if not all of them don't even have Vista and are just jumping on the 'lets insult this OS' bandwagon. Take it from someone who's used it since Day 1. Its perfect.