I got xp/linux on my laptop and vista on my gaming comp.
xp/mandr runs fine , never had a problem.
Vista x64 on the other hand.
Cant install creative gamping port. Creative cant fix it since the support for this hardware is not included in vista, dumb?????
Bluescreen, might be because of my Striker extrem bord and corsair memories but i think its Vista since i got these when i tryed kingstone memories aswell. Peformence is poor with 2gb memory, i had to uppgrade from 2gb since i had LAGG in some games, even LTRO could not run maxed out and i am running top of the line comp with SLI 7900gtx(oldest hardware in comp)
I got 2*74gb raports with REALLY poort peformance in vista home x64. i dunno why, loading a folder with 10+ movies takes 3 to 20+!!! sec. this is insane, i never have this kind of loading time with 5700rpm laptop hardrive with same files. Other than that. its allright. Takes up allot of discspace but not an issue for most, allot of not so needed crap in it, bit annoying. Not much new stuff of use. SLI works for me but i dont think i get any performance boost from it tbh, most people i taked with said it was 20-50% peformance boost in xp but in vista i havent noticed sucha when i swicth SLI on and off.
Considering how long it took to make Vista and the many delays I don't see Vienna being released in 2009. Vista began sorta in 2001 I believe and got released in 2007. That is a long time, unless something has changed in the way MS creates OS's I expect many delays. But that is just my opinion.
So next year when thousands of people are playing Age of Conan in DX10, you'll still be using XP? Other people will have stunning water rendering, and amazing lighting effects, while your experience will be slightly more watered down, and less rich, BUT HEY you'll have those extra 20 FPS right?
Hmm maybe a tad optimistic there given Vista rather maligned appearance and the fact anyone with a bit of savvy is debating whether buying vista is worth it given windows vienna is slated for 2009. Certainly I don't see vista a a natural upgrade next year at all. Maybe the year after but I dont think DX10 (or vista) is a major leap forward M$ want us to beleive. Certainly I can live a year or so without it, which pushes whhay to close to vienna. Even if it is, there little else in Vista to whet my appetite and I can quite happily live without DX10 for some time. The +20 FPS would be a bonus too !
Windows ME anyone ?
Well said. ME II indeed, at least if SP1 doesn't work major magic.
Originally posted by FE|Tachyon
and I'm now just going to block you, as I don't really care to hear anything you say.
Funny how you announce in a tizzy you are going to block me then reply a page later. Have trouble figuring out how to block? You crack me up man. You cite reviews that back up what I have been saying more than what you say and you ignore the many links and quotes I have posted from well respected performance sites and even from Valve's Gabe Newell and IDs John Carmack and then claim I am just speaking out of my arse without anything to back me up.
Look, I don't want to get into a flamefest with you - you are entitled to your opinion (incorrect or myopic as it may be); but even if we agree to disagree and move on I find it a bit dishonest that you continue to act as if I am the only one saying these things about Vista. And I don't just mean general buzz - I mean the respectable sites and experts - clearly the world of experts holds a pretty similar view on Vista as me and, generally, the best you can find people will say about vista is that it isn't as bad as most people say. It is just like that softball PC Mag review said - while it offers some small improvements (I acknowledge that) it has no must have feature or element and ultimately most of what vista adds can still be had in XP without the performance issues, driver issues, instability, and interoperability issues. So again, I suggest the issue with Vista is NOT that it is so terrible (allthough in some ways I believe it is) the real issue is that XP is just so much better and is available with out the issues.
I got xp/linux on my laptop and vista on my gaming comp. xp/mandr runs fine , never had a problem.
Vista x64 on the other hand. Cant install creative gamping port. Creative cant fix it since the support for this hardware is not included in vista, dumb????? Bluescreen, might be because of my Striker extrem bord and corsair memories but i think its Vista since i got these when i tryed kingstone memories aswell. Peformence is poor with 2gb memory, i had to uppgrade from 2gb since i had LAGG in some games, even LTRO could not run maxed out and i am running top of the line comp with SLI 7900gtx(oldest hardware in comp) I got 2*74gb raports with REALLY poort peformance in vista home x64. i dunno why, loading a folder with 10+ movies takes 3 to 20+!!! sec. this is insane, i never have this kind of loading time with 5700rpm laptop hardrive with same files. Other than that. its allright. Takes up allot of discspace but not an issue for most, allot of not so needed crap in it, bit annoying. Not much new stuff of use. SLI works for me but i dont think i get any performance boost from it tbh, most people i taked with said it was 20-50% peformance boost in xp but in vista i havent noticed sucha when i swicth SLI on and off.
Your problem is with 64 bit OS PERIOD. Not Vista. Nobody is supporting 64bit, and thats why your having problems.
Considering how long it took to make Vista and the many delays I don't see Vienna being released in 2009. Vista began sorta in 2001 I believe and got released in 2007. That is a long time, unless something has changed in the way MS creates OS's I expect many delays. But that is just my opinion.
EXACTLY. Vista was delayed what? Almost 3 years. So maybe 2011 Vienna will hit the shelves, who will be using XP then? Be realistic.
Reality is THIS, XP is good, but Vista is a lot more robust, and TODAYS market demands great multimedia technology, clean looking graphical interface, and ease of use. Vista eclipses XP in these catagories. People don't ask for a faster OS, they ask for faster hardware, and a more robust OS. Thats what they got. Maybe the hardcore enthusist won't be happy about giving up 15% of their proformance for what Vista brings to the table, BUT THEY DID WHEN XP CAME OUT, EVENTUALY. XP had the same problems Vista WAS having 6 months ago.
This self absorbed critic AgntSmith even said himself he ueses it on his old Media Center PC, and he Dual Boots it. For somebody that thinks it's SO INCREDIBLY TERRIBLE hes using vista an awful lot. Imagine the people that don't have the pessimistic view he has.
When it comes to games, Vista is slower. If you wanted PURE speed, You'd go back to Windows ME, because its faster yet then XP. Speed isn't the only factor these days so. ME only has DX9.3(Maybe not the exact, but its missing some of the DX9 that XP has) OHHHH you thought DX10 was the FIRST DX to be forced into a NEW OS? LOL NOPE!!! DX9 wasn't picked up untill 2 years after its release by Windows ME.
If this person knew anything about marketing a NEW OS, He wouldn't be so blind to the fact that, ALL the complaints hes zipping off here, were the SAME EXACT complaints about XP a Decade ago. The Industry hasn't changed, the customers HAVE. People are more demanding.
I can't comment on the robustness of Vista, I can comment on XP and I have been running XP without needing a reinstall for over 2 years or any problems.
As for the interface being cleaner in Vista, apart from the Aeroglass surely XP can be skinned up just as well. If it can't then I am sure Microsoft could have updated XP without too much effort.
Sorry but a nicer screen to hold my icons is not a reason to spend lots of money. Running an OS doesn't give you pleasure its the games , music, movies etc that do that, the OS should be irrellevant.
What is with all the warnings as well, they are just superflous in Vista. An OS should be unobtrusive.
You are cluless, I got suported drivers and software for x64, els i would have installed 32 so its really vista. THERE is allot of software supported with x64, alost all i got installed. Thoe they do not use x64 recourses fully if thats what you meen.
I run Vista x64 and have zero problems with it now. When Vista got released I had problems with ATI drivers and Creative drivers. Both of which I remember well had driver problems when XP came out. Crappy Creative drivers I am use to, I never expect them to ever get it right. I'm not even using the current driver set because the May X-fi drivers cause massive static. A lot of posts on their forums about it. ATI drivers get better every month with Vista x64.
All that being said, in my experience Vista is following the same route as the problems XP had at release, both in customer complaints and crummy drivers. Right now my machine is fast and stable. Maybe not as fast and or stable as XP but everything works in my Vista x64.
It does appear to me that Vista x64 is picking up in adoption. Microsoft orphaned XP x64 shortly after its release it seems.
I run Vista x64 and have zero problems with it now. When Vista got released I had problems with ATI drivers and Creative drivers. Both of which I remember well had driver problems when XP came out. Crappy Creative drivers I am use to, I never expect them to ever get it right. I'm not even using the current driver set because the May X-fi drivers cause massive static. A lot of posts on their forums about it. ATI drivers get better every month with Vista x64. All that being said, in my experience Vista is following the same route as the problems XP had at release, both in customer complaints and crummy drivers. Right now my machine is fast and stable. Maybe not as fast and or stable as XP but everything works in my Vista x64. It does appear to me that Vista x64 is picking up in adoption. Microsoft orphaned XP x64 shortly after its release it seems.
Thank you for this post.
VISTA 64, SHOULD have been the ONLY Vista RELEASED. It's up to somebody to make the choice for society. I would love to see Vienna released ONLY in 64bit, and if YOU absolutely needed it, you could get the 32 bit by requesting it via mail / webpage, like Vista is right now, only they do the reverse, 32 bit included 64 bit Optional. MY next machine will be 64bit Vista, but I'm going to hold off, and hand pick my pieces as to make sure I have as little problems as I can.
The problem isn't with 64 bit OS's, its with driver adoption of hardware manufacturers.
I can't comment on the robustness of Vista, I can comment on XP and I have been running XP without needing a reinstall for over 2 years or any problems.
As for the interface being cleaner in Vista, apart from the Aeroglass surely XP can be skinned up just as well. If it can't then I am sure Microsoft could have updated XP without too much effort. Sorry but a nicer screen to hold my icons is not a reason to spend lots of money. Running an OS doesn't give you pleasure its the games , music, movies etc that do that, the OS should be irrellevant.
What is with all the warnings as well, they are just superflous in Vista. An OS should be unobtrusive.
Your missing what makes Vista good. NOT in how it looks, but how everything is organised. If you do a search on vista for files and folders, its almost instantanious, instead of seconds of the hour glass you get with XP.
People don't need to be computer experts to set up nextworks, or share files, VISTA also is very easy to share 1 printer over a network, without needed a NETWORK printer. Vista offers a LOT to the normal user. People who can set everything they need up in XP, without help won't gain nearly as much as your common person. Your every day person gains a lot of ease of use, and new options for multimedia. Vista almost configures everything automaticly, very simple easy to follow steps. IF YOU DON'T like vista, its because you haven't used enough of it. IF your only using it for MS OFFICE, OUTLOOK, And a game or two. WELL YEAH I GUESS vista isn't much different from XP, and a Porche isn't much different from a GoCart if all your doing is putzing around at 3 MPH.
Oh there way to much discussion above to respond to. Dunno why people are feeling so hostile though its a good discussion. Anyways I've pulled out some quotes which kind of raise points for myself. There in italics
"You guys don't understand that technology HAS to progess. And it WILL progess. Vista and DX10 may of come in a little bit early but its the next step in technology. why are u trying to push it away"
I think the debate is not whether how much progression windows Vista is but rather what progression has it made and is it worth the upgrade troubles and price tag. I am a beleiver that vista is simply not worth the trouble.
"Vista isn't for YESTERDAYS computers. I've been trying to say this a hundred times and ANTI-CHange Agent has battled with me on everything about it. "
Sorry but as someone how has used linux for a number of years and seen the scalability of that particular range of OS's. Microsoft dont understand the word scalability and certainly I feel dubious as to the bloatware nature of Vista. This isnt about anti -progression its also because I'd like to see the same OS running on older devices and devices such as palmtops etc;. Good software is scalable and suits end users needs. Irony is, vista is almost identicle to XP under the hood ( modified kernel, some kernel interface to improve security, same filesystem) so where is all the extra GB installation coming from ? Imagine one day waking up and installing a new linux kernel only to find the system itself needs GB's more space. No one in 'nix land would take that crap. M$ on the other hand are going crazy and there shooting themselves in the foot.
If you think this is nonsense then I will say this. I've tried a range of linux distro from small, lightweight to big ones and the lightweight ones invariably run faster than the larger distro's. In essence you can use scalability to fit the OS to your needs. Not fitting your hardware to an OS needs. MS needs to learn this lesson and fast...
"Well, XP doesn't FULLY untilize Multimore Processing, but Vista doesn't exactly do the best job itself. "
Another sign of vistas rushed release. I would expect and still hope vista uses multi cores more efficiently. I know that newer linux kernels have support for symetric mutli processing at least, this is an on going incremental development thing too. If true this isnt impressive for *the* mainstream OS in the world today. SMP is hot shit and its not going away.
"..and the more labor intesive processes that are going on at one time,"
I hope all those process are vital ones and nothing frivolous. I have heard vista goes process crazy but can be trimmed.
However, the damage is allready done to vista's rep and the poor deployment in 2007 and not getting SP1 until Feb/March of 2008 will likely kill any real hope of Vista supplanting XP.
As anyone wise man knows not to get a new M$ operating system till least service pack one but vienna impending debut, this 2008 schedule doesn't singly bode well for vista. As for the date of vienna, well I'd like to say that it would be post 2009 BUT technology wont dictate this markets will and M$ will simply plug another groundbreaking OS using the power of marketing. (Which always invaribly involves a campaign to encourage families to make photobooks and video editing like this is a new thing... mac's.. ahem anyone...)
In the end if you've got vista and performance is fine then stick with it. If you've not yet upgraded then dont bother until directX10 games ONLY become the norm.. and remeber age of conan is both directx 9 and directx10!
"IF YOU DON'T like vista, its because you haven't used enough of it. "
Or your lucky AND computer savvy enough to install a range of alternative OS's and you realise Windows as a whole has severe limitations and obvious advantages?
I would love to see Vienna released ONLY in 64bit, and if YOU absolutely needed it, you could get the 32 bit by requesting it via mail / webpage,
I see your not a great believer in backwards compatability then ? Are you sure you dont have shares in any hardware companies ?!?! Why would one make it so hard to get there product to the widest possible audience !
"IF YOU DON'T like vista, its because you haven't used enough of it. "
Or your lucky AND computer savvy enough to install a range of alternative OS's and you realise Windows as a whole has severe limitations and obvious advantages?
I would love to see Vienna released ONLY in 64bit, and if YOU absolutely needed it, you could get the 32 bit by requesting it via mail / webpage, I see your not a great believer in backwards compatability then ? Are you sure you dont have shares in any hardware companies ?!?! Why would one make it so hard to get there product to the widest possible audience !
It doesn't matter WHAT Company you work for in the industry, be it INTEL, AMD, DELL, HP, OCZ, ASUS, ANY of them, They pretty much ALL AGREE, that 64 bit processing, is the next big step in creating more powerful PC's. The problem isn't in finding the next big step, its convinceing the foolish masses, that they would benifit, from this change. People (CERTAIN PEOPLE) arn't smart enough to recognise progress. Remember the big debate about switching to 32 bit processing? It was the same battle then as it now, only NOW hardware is growing faster then Software, and so as hardware gets faster, to make new possiblities with computers possible, theres no direct NEED for a huge overhaul. There are ways to make 32 bit programs run on a 64 bit OS, don't you see DOS prompt when you type "CMD" in the RUN box, on XP ??? DOS isn't 32bit.... IT's important that Vienna does what it can to work as well as possible with 32 bit applications, but theres nobody thats going to disagree with the fact that 64bit processing holds a significant improvement in the computer industry.
Reality is THIS, XP is good, but Vista is a lot more robust, and TODAYS market demands great multimedia technology, clean looking graphical interface, and ease of use. Vista eclipses XP in these catagories. People don't ask for a faster OS, they ask for faster hardware, and a more robust OS. Thats what they got. Maybe the hardcore enthusist won't be happy about giving up 15% of their proformance for what Vista brings to the table, BUT THEY DID WHEN XP CAME OUT, EVENTUALY. XP had the same problems Vista WAS having 6 months ago.
More robust? How so? Name one thing Vista does better (not the same, not almost the same, and not with prettier colors than XP. Fact is if you are honest the answer is nothing. Many slight improvements in Vista but even as the review you quoted said all those improvements are available in different ways in XP as well. And XP never had the same problems Vista does because XP offered so many things that where COMPLETELY UNAVAILABLE in 98, 98SE, and Me. SO in a way the transition pain is similar and understandable but with Vista you get NOTHING for the pain save some stuff built into Vista that has to be added to XP albeit the Vista versions are questionable in terms of being as good (IE Vista integrated search is nice but not as good as Google desktop in XP).
Originally posted by FE|Tachyon
This self absorbed critic AgntSmith even said himself he ueses it on his old Media Center PC, and he Dual Boots it. For somebody that thinks it's SO INCREDIBLY TERRIBLE hes using vista an awful lot. Imagine the people that don't have the pessimistic view he has.
I am self absorbed? You are the one who is arguing that because you don't mind the issues it is all fine and dandy. I dual boot it because I cannot stand the problems long enough to stick with it, I also switch back to XP for games unless doing testing and comparison, and I use it to learn it but the reality is the more I learn the more I agree with what most experts are saying about its problems. And so what I used vista for a media center PC - I have also used MythTV running on Linux and while Media Center works nicely I could just as easily use XP Media Center as it is exactly the same (although when I get around to it I will be switching back to MythTV as it offers more capabilities). But this discussion is about Vista as a gaming platform, where performance matters. The discussion is also about DX10 and its future given that it is tied to an OS that is not getting good buzz and not getting deployed well because developers will never fully realize the DX10 promises if people don't have DX10 capability - and even if that changes hey are unlikely to go make special DX10 PC games when that means making a DX9-ish version for consoles that cannot do the DX10 stuff. As for allot of people - nearly the whole PC industry is critical of Vista - are you deaf or do you live in another dimension. Even large MS partners have been openly critical (notably Acer, Dell, and HP).
Originally posted by FE|Tachyon
When it comes to games, Vista is slower. If you wanted PURE speed, You'd go back to Windows ME, because its faster yet then XP. Speed isn't the only factor these days so. ME only has DX9.3(Maybe not the exact, but its missing some of the DX9 that XP has) OHHHH you thought DX10 was the FIRST DX to be forced into a NEW OS? LOL NOPE!!! DX9 wasn't picked up untill 2 years after its release by Windows ME.
If this person knew anything about marketing a NEW OS, He wouldn't be so blind to the fact that, ALL the complaints hes zipping off here, were the SAME EXACT complaints about XP a Decade ago. The Industry hasn't changed, the customers HAVE. People are more demanding.
Since this discussion has been about Vista gaming thanks for admitting that you are wrong. As for your reference back to XP and Me give me a break - ME was so universally hated, such a POS that even MS acknowledged it was a poor product. ME never outperformed anything, in fact it was so unstable and flaky it was universally hated. Perhaps you mean 98SE - yes, it had allot if dedicated believers who didn't ant to switch. But XP offered so many new things that 98SE could NOT do that it easily won out once the first few months settled in. Referring to ME as anything but total crap shows your lack of knowledge and utter foolishness on this subject.
More robust? How so? Name one thing Vista does better (not the same, not almost the same, and not with prettier colors than XP. Fact is if you are honest the answer is nothing.
I'm gonna say system restore. I have used this a lot in both OS's and by far Vista system restore totally out does XP system restore. In fact I was kinda amazed on how well it worked over XP.
I had to use it several times with Creative drivers that gave me all kinds of problems, and a few times on ATI drivers.
Not related to xp vs vista, but ReadyBoost, which isn't in XP but since using it I can tell a difference in how applications open.
Everything works on this end so no complaints here, but hey everything worked for me in WinME too.
I will give you system restore, and go further saying shadow copy in general is better - as is the windows backup system if you have a version with the ability to do complete PC backups (XML based image, essentially). ReadyBoost - most reputable reviews have shown it to be fairly useless to anyone without very little RAM (512 or less), although there are some reports (even some anonymous ones from Redmond) that it is not working as intended so perhaps SP1 clears that up. My experience and testing has been that it is of no use to a system with adequate RAM. But again, not slamming the features as they are improved for $20 you can get Norton Ghost for XP (or vista for a tad more as you need the latest version) which is better than any of those options in terms of a complete backup and system protection system. I also think that it is fair to say that the vast majority of users are not capable of taking advantage of system restore or imaging or ghost anyways though so again, a nice improvement but hardly worth the myriad of negatives and when you get right down to it the capability can be easily added to XP.
Vista is full of such things - BCedit is far superior to the XP's boot.ini files, PE 2.0 is better than 1.6, and the built in tools for recovery, management, and repair of a Vista installation are better than XPs but at what cost. I can get all the functionality of a Vista system in XP with third party apps (free and otherwise). Most times those third party apps are far better than the improved elements of Vista. Again, it isn't about how bad Vista is - it is about how Vista is compared to XP and in comparison the many improvements, minor as they may be in many cases, just do not overcome the drawbacks of the performance issues, stability issues, and interoperability issues.
Consider back to Win9x to XP - there was allot of early pain (although, for the most part, the worst of it was resolved within a few months of release) but the gains from Win9x to XP where huge. You didn't just get a slightly better featureset you got entirely new capabilities. You didn't just get the same thing with a better design to it you got entirely new ways of doing new things and you got core changes to the kernel that made it possible to go from Win9x forward to where we are now. And most importantly, while it did take some more horsepower to do this stuff you got far more back in capability than you gave in resources. Additionally, 9x to XP was at the BEGINNING of the Moore's law curve where you could afford to exploit resources as it was no problem to wait a matter of months to get twice as many resources from new technology. Today is different - for the most part processors are at a wall in terms of speed, heat, and power - GPUs are against a similar wall although one as much made of money as silicon. 32bit addressing is against the wall as well meaning no more adding in a gig of RAM every year to recharge your system to that 'sweet spot'. It is a different time now with XP to Vista than it was with 9x to XP. Todays more money, much more, is made from console games than from PC games - so upping the ante in PC gaming (DX10) when consoles are stuck in place but are driving development is not going to get us much especially with the performance issues considered (DEVs are not going to build a DX9 version for consoles and rebuild a DX10 version for PCs). Again, is a different time now than it was then even if the comparison of XP to Vista was appropriate (and it isn't as I mentioned Vista is a series of minor improvements and not real innovations or capability increases).
That being said - if I where not a gamer I would probably be arguing something similar to what Tachyon is and saying that while Vista has issues in time they will be resolved over time (although the resolving is going way to slow) and it will mature, most likely, into a capable successor. But i do game, I do use my computer in such a way that performance matters (even outside of games) and Vista is measurably and noticeably slower, less stable, and outright flaky in those situations (among others). The point isn't whether Vista sucks or not - the point is whether it is a good gaming platform and whether what it offers in terms of DX10 promises will ever even be realized due to the previously mentioned issues of poor deployment, questionable performance, and the new problem (not an issue when XP came out) of DX10 taking things beyond what consoles can do when PC games are already getting less attention than consoles.
I haven't even brought up Vista's DRM issues, stricter licensing (severe virtualization restrictions among them), pricing (not bad OEM but pretty steep at retail, networking/wireless issues, and a number of other non-gaming specific issues. I am not trying to flame Vista - I believe in time it will be fixed up enough (in terms of the bigger things) to be a nice 'luxury' desktop OS. But as a gaming platform it has major issues and time matters as DX10 is tied to Vista and without broad and quick adoption DX10 stands little to no chance of attracting developers since ONLY Vista can use it (not XP and not consoles which represent 99% of the gaming market). I really think that MS screwed up here and has just gotten so big that they are too detached from their customers - committees on committees and all that. And it is inevitable that you get so big that you have so many people to please, so many dependents that the weight of addressing all their needs becomes unbearable. That is where MS and Vista is IMHO. Will Linux and others rise up - perhaps. But I think it is more likely that Vista will just linger, slowly - it won't really be the next Me but it will NEVER be XP. In fact, nothing will probably ever be XP again.
P.S. Tachyon - I saw this article and thought you would find it interesting, it is talking about the new breed of 100 Hz LCDs that are coming. Funny how you flamed me for saying that the difference between 40, 50 or so FPS matters when the industry acknowledges that it does make a difference and it is noticeable.
I will give you system restore, and go further saying shadow copy in general is better - as is the windows backup system if you have a version with the ability to do complete PC backups (XML based image, essentially). ReadyBoost - most reputable reviews have shown it to be fairly useless to anyone without very little RAM (512 or less), although there are some reports (even some anonymous ones from Redmond) that it is not working as intended so perhaps SP1 clears that up. My experience and testing has been that it is of no use to a system with adequate RAM. But again, not slamming the features as they are improved for $20 you can get Norton Ghost for XP (or vista for a tad more as you need the latest version) which is better than any of those options in terms of a complete backup and system protection system. I also think that it is fair to say that the vast majority of users are not capable of taking advantage of system restore or imaging or ghost anyways though so again, a nice improvement but hardly worth the myriad of negatives and when you get right down to it the capability can be easily added to XP.
Vista is full of such things - BCedit is far superior to the XP's boot.ini files, PE 2.0 is better than 1.6, and the built in tools for recovery, management, and repair of a Vista installation are better than XPs but at what cost. I can get all the functionality of a Vista system in XP with third party apps (free and otherwise). Most times those third party apps are far better than the improved elements of Vista. Again, it isn't about how bad Vista is - it is about how Vista is compared to XP and in comparison the many improvements, minor as they may be in many cases, just do not overcome the drawbacks of the performance issues, stability issues, and interoperability issues.
Consider back to Win9x to XP - there was allot of early pain (although, for the most part, the worst of it was resolved within a few months of release) but the gains from Win9x to XP where huge. You didn't just get a slightly better featureset you got entirely new capabilities. You didn't just get the same thing with a better design to it you got entirely new ways of doing new things and you got core changes to the kernel that made it possible to go from Win9x forward to where we are now. And most importantly, while it did take some more horsepower to do this stuff you got far more back in capability than you gave in resources. Additionally, 9x to XP was at the BEGINNING of the Moore's law curve where you could afford to exploit resources as it was no problem to wait a matter of months to get twice as many resources from new technology. Today is different - for the most part processors are at a wall in terms of speed, heat, and power - GPUs are against a similar wall although one as much made of money as silicon. 32bit addressing is against the wall as well meaning no more adding in a gig of RAM every year to recharge your system to that 'sweet spot'. It is a different time now with XP to Vista than it was with 9x to XP. Todays more money, much more, is made from console games than from PC games - so upping the ante in PC gaming (DX10) when consoles are stuck in place but are driving development is not going to get us much especially with the performance issues considered (DEVs are not going to build a DX9 version for consoles and rebuild a DX10 version for PCs). Again, is a different time now than it was then even if the comparison of XP to Vista was appropriate (and it isn't as I mentioned Vista is a series of minor improvements and not real innovations or capability increases).
That being said - if I where not a gamer I would probably be arguing something similar to what Tachyon is and saying that while Vista has issues in time they will be resolved over time (although the resolving is going way to slow) and it will mature, most likely, into a capable successor. But i do game, I do use my computer in such a way that performance matters (even outside of games) and Vista is measurably and noticeably slower, less stable, and outright flaky in those situations (among others). The point isn't whether Vista sucks or not - the point is whether it is a good gaming platform and whether what it offers in terms of DX10 promises will ever even be realized due to the previously mentioned issues of poor deployment, questionable performance, and the new problem (not an issue when XP came out) of DX10 taking things beyond what consoles can do when PC games are already getting less attention than consoles.
I haven't even brought up Vista's DRM issues, stricter licensing (severe virtualization restrictions among them), pricing (not bad OEM but pretty steep at retail, networking/wireless issues, and a number of other non-gaming specific issues. I am not trying to flame Vista - I believe in time it will be fixed up enough (in terms of the bigger things) to be a nice 'luxury' desktop OS. But as a gaming platform it has major issues and time matters as DX10 is tied to Vista and without broad and quick adoption DX10 stands little to no chance of attracting developers since ONLY Vista can use it (not XP and not consoles which represent 99% of the gaming market). I really think that MS screwed up here and has just gotten so big that they are too detached from their customers - committees on committees and all that. And it is inevitable that you get so big that you have so many people to please, so many dependents that the weight of addressing all their needs becomes unbearable. That is where MS and Vista is IMHO. Will Linux and others rise up - perhaps. But I think it is more likely that Vista will just linger, slowly - it won't really be the next Me but it will NEVER be XP. In fact, nothing will probably ever be XP again.
P.S. Tachyon - I saw this article and thought you would find it interesting, it is talking about the new breed of 100 Hz LCDs that are coming. Funny how you flamed me for saying that the difference between 40, 50 or so FPS matters when the industry acknowledges that it does make a difference and it is noticeable.
I've never flamed anyone here. Well maybe a little, but I didn't mean for it to seem like flameing. We're just on totaly opposite sides of the spectrum on our oppinions reguarding this subject. One thing to bear in mind, Your an industry expert. 99.9% of PC users are not. You MAY be able to get XP to do EVERYTHING that you need it to do, but for your average lay person XP would be considered NOT user friendly for a lot of things. Vista bridges that gap between XP's versitility, and OSX's ease of use. Vista is a lot more for the every day user.
Reguarding the 100 hz LCD's there are 100's of articles that will argue that 70+ is useless that the eye only see's less then that.
Just so you know, that article also says that 100 hz on TV's is interlaced so it would effectively only be 50hz as a monitor, which your eye can prolly see. 70 hz is where your eye cannot distingquish. They said they could BEARLY see the difference between 25-60hz interlaced which is 12.5-30 hz or FPS and the 100hz which is only ACTUALY 50 FPS. 30hz is uber slow.
TV's and Monitors are different. TV signals are typical much slower and refreshed differently. Interlaced is typical, and Progressive Scan is the better, but much rarer. What that means .... Interlaced alternates lines of resolution A B A B A B. A refreshes, then B refreshes. So your not getting a totaly refresh per HZ. It takes 2 HZ to refresh a screen, and thus 100hz TV = 50 hz actualy refresh rate.
Now what I said still stands true. Your eye cannot see the difference between 70 hz, and 90 hz. HOWEVER your eye could see the difference between 70 FPS, and 293 FPS because you'll get whats called TEARING. Part of the image will refresh on 1 frame, and part of it on another, and TEARING is a BAD thing. This is why a lot of people with insanely good systems use the "Syncronize" feature of the graphics card, which matches your FPS to your HZ, so your getting optimal refresh. ON monitors with Slow speeds like 12ms You would want to turn that off, because it'll look better With it off.
It doesn't matter WHAT Company you work for in the industry, be it INTEL, AMD, DELL, HP, OCZ, ASUS, ANY of them, They pretty much ALL AGREE, that 64 bit processing, is the next big step in creating more powerful PC's. The problem isn't in finding the next big step, its convinceing the foolish masses, that they would benifit, from this change. People (CERTAIN PEOPLE) arn't smart enough to recognise progress. Remember the big debate about switching to 32 bit processing? It was the same battle then as it now, only NOW hardware is growing faster then Software, and so as hardware gets faster, to make new possiblities with computers possible, theres no direct NEED for a huge overhaul. There are ways to make 32 bit programs run on a 64 bit OS, don't you see DOS prompt when you type "CMD" in the RUN box, on XP ??? DOS isn't 32bit.... IT's important that Vienna does what it can to work as well as possible with 32 bit applications, but theres nobody thats going to disagree with the fact that 64bit processing holds a significant improvement in the computer industry.
I dont think people are resisting change. Some people resisting having to fork out more money right away and prefer a safer transition process. Its the same as between 16 and 32 bit. Its the same with SMP verse single, its the same with 32 / 64 bit. For example I have the fortune of using a free to use operating system (ubuntu) I really prefer this over windows but I recently swapped back from the 64bit edition to 32bit. Why ?
I found the real life performance of 64bit to not be that much more than 32bit. Certainly nothing to write home about. I also found several issues with tried and tested programs which just crash and burned on the 64 bit edition. Some software vendors also are slow on uptaking for 64 bit linux ( Adobe flash.. shame on you!). In the end I moved back. I dont deny my processor is 64 bit capable or that 64 bit is the future however I would not like to be lumbered by a massive leap forward and be stuck whilst the rest of the universe catches up. (On a side note I really like Open Source Development for the incremental stages which it makes and doesnt ram the latest greatest thing down my throat but is reliable and not about to be made redundant).
Even M$S are not so stupid as to do some massive leap of technological doo-hickery. All M$ releases have pandered to backward compatibility ( buiness in particular dont want to take some unknown risk onboard). For example, like you say, good old DOS is still present in XP albeit in a new form. Though I have to say DOSBOX is better than MS own efforts at running really old DOS programs.
In some ways perhaps the above is what annoys myself about directx10. It could most probably with much effort (which I expect from *the* leading OS makers in the world) made to run on XP. But we all know that directX10 is a cynical ploy to get people to buy vista which is (IMHO) very new feature light anyays. Sorry but thats how I feel. One day I will use directx10 (unless openGL version X kicks its sorry ass.. I can hope).. but I will not buy a new operating system for it *without* other advantages.
And lets be honest not every technological advancement (excluding the biggies right now) is a good as marketing wants us to beleive. Vista falling to this category for myself. The real morons are those that buy every marketing ploy and lap up every advancement in technology just to see it equally as discarded by the wayside. Vista is going to fall by the wayside to vienna and vienna is nearer than we probably could think, especially as I said above in light of the service pack for vista being 2008 !
You wont like me saying this but MS is losing its grip somewhat. Not a lot but for a company that enjoys a monopoly it is enough.
Just so you know, that article also says that 100 hz on TV's is interlaced so it would effectively only be 50hz as a monitor, which your eye can prolly see. 70 hz is where your eye cannot distingquish. They said they could BEARLY see the difference between 25-60hz interlaced which is 12.5-30 hz or FPS and the 100hz which is only ACTUALY 50 FPS. 30hz is uber slow.
TV's and Monitors are different. TV signals are typical much slower and refreshed differently. Interlaced is typical, and Progressive Scan is the better, but much rarer. What that means .... Interlaced alternates lines of resolution A B A B A B. A refreshes, then B refreshes. So your not getting a totaly refresh per HZ. It takes 2 HZ to refresh a screen, and thus 100hz TV = 50 hz actualy refresh rate.
Now what I said still stands true. Your eye cannot see the difference between 70 hz, and 90 hz. HOWEVER your eye could see the difference between 70 FPS, and 293 FPS because you'll get whats called TEARING. Part of the image will refresh on 1 frame, and part of it on another, and TEARING is a BAD thing. This is why a lot of people with insanely good systems use the "Syncronize" feature of the graphics card, which matches your FPS to your HZ, so your getting optimal refresh. ON monitors with Slow speeds like 12ms You would want to turn that off, because it'll look better With it off.
True TVs are a different animal but the principal is what I was pointing out. Believe you me, if the difference between 60 Hz interlaced and 100 Hz interlaced is noticeable it will be far more noticeable on a computer with progressive scanning. All that being said - for the msot part so long as you are getting 60 or above FPS and you have an LCD you are probably getting a smooth enough picture, it isn't like a CRT where 60 looks fairly flickery. But, more is better and while 200 FPS might be overkill 40 to 60 and 60 to 80 or so and above helps.
Originally posted by FE|Tachyon
I've never flamed anyone here. Well maybe a little, but I didn't mean for it to seem like flameing. We're just on totaly opposite sides of the spectrum on our oppinions reguarding this subject. One thing to bear in mind, Your an industry expert. 99.9% of PC users are not. You MAY be able to get XP to do EVERYTHING that you need it to do, but for your average lay person XP would be considered NOT user friendly for a lot of things. Vista bridges that gap between XP's versitility, and OSX's ease of use. Vista is a lot more for the every day user.
I agree that Vista is more in its element for the average dufus user - but that is not a gamer. Many gamers may be morons but on the whole gamers are a rather sophisticated group in terms of computer savvy. And I have been discussing Vista from the gaming platform point of view. Out of games the performance issue can be overcome with a bit more RAM and a good CPU - it is still there, still wasted, still worse for XP but the issue is less in the face. But gamers, and in general enthusiast users, are a force multiplier for Windows - if gamers are not happy then those they advise and support won't be and it snowballs from there. Right now vista has to areas it is pretty terrible for - gamers/enthusiasts and business - it may be good for the third segment the home non-savvy user but it cannot become the next XP without the first two driving it.
Originally posted by FE|Tachyon
OK SORRY to jump so far back, but What part of ME is FASTER then XP didn't come through clearly? I NEVER said ME was BETTER then XP. I said ME is FASTER the XP for games. Your saying XP is better in every way, but its simply not. Vista is better in every way, bar 1, proformance. Which is TYPICAL of next gerneration OS's .
ME wasn't faster than XP really - it was apples and oranges. ME was a total disaster on so many levels that Microsoft ended up apologizing for it admitting it had no purpose and was poorly conceived and executed. 98SE was pretty stable and for a short while I suppose you could say it was faster but ONLY at things from its time - XP not only did the new things faster but 98SE couldn't even do them (and not just because MS made some API exclusive for XP) because it lacked the capability completely. XP can physically do anything vista can - even DX10. MS holds DX10 from XP because it is the only reason to get Vista over XP in terms of new capabilities instead of small improvements (successful ones or not).
I suppose we will just agree to disagree, I see what you are getting at with Vista in terms of its improvements - but so many of those improvements (most are of the small nature type) are just refreshes and certainly not new capabilities or anything of that sort like we had with 9x to XP. On the flip side of the coin to those improvements are major stability, compatibility, and performance issues - it just doesn't add up. Spend a high cost to get something that offers many minor improvements (some of which are not properly working - wireless, file operations, etc) and break stability, performance, and compatibility. It is like taking a step forward but two steps back. i will give you that vista has the step forward in it but you have to admit that right now the steps back outweigh it especially when talking about it from the standpoint of gaming.
Comments
I got xp/linux on my laptop and vista on my gaming comp.
xp/mandr runs fine , never had a problem.
Vista x64 on the other hand.
Cant install creative gamping port. Creative cant fix it since the support for this hardware is not included in vista, dumb?????
Bluescreen, might be because of my Striker extrem bord and corsair memories but i think its Vista since i got these when i tryed kingstone memories aswell. Peformence is poor with 2gb memory, i had to uppgrade from 2gb since i had LAGG in some games, even LTRO could not run maxed out and i am running top of the line comp with SLI 7900gtx(oldest hardware in comp)
I got 2*74gb raports with REALLY poort peformance in vista home x64. i dunno why, loading a folder with 10+ movies takes 3 to 20+!!! sec. this is insane, i never have this kind of loading time with 5700rpm laptop hardrive with same files. Other than that. its allright. Takes up allot of discspace but not an issue for most, allot of not so needed crap in it, bit annoying. Not much new stuff of use. SLI works for me but i dont think i get any performance boost from it tbh, most people i taked with said it was 20-50% peformance boost in xp but in vista i havent noticed sucha when i swicth SLI on and off.
Considering how long it took to make Vista and the many delays I don't see Vienna being released in 2009. Vista began sorta in 2001 I believe and got released in 2007. That is a long time, unless something has changed in the way MS creates OS's I expect many delays. But that is just my opinion.
.. .... .- - . - .-. --- .-.. .-.. ... .-- .... --- .-. . .--. --- .-. - .-.-.-
--------------------------------------------------------
Promote what you love instead of bashing what you hate.
Windows ME anyone ?
Well said. ME II indeed, at least if SP1 doesn't work major magic.
Funny how you announce in a tizzy you are going to block me then reply a page later. Have trouble figuring out how to block? You crack me up man. You cite reviews that back up what I have been saying more than what you say and you ignore the many links and quotes I have posted from well respected performance sites and even from Valve's Gabe Newell and IDs John Carmack and then claim I am just speaking out of my arse without anything to back me up.
Look, I don't want to get into a flamefest with you - you are entitled to your opinion (incorrect or myopic as it may be); but even if we agree to disagree and move on I find it a bit dishonest that you continue to act as if I am the only one saying these things about Vista. And I don't just mean general buzz - I mean the respectable sites and experts - clearly the world of experts holds a pretty similar view on Vista as me and, generally, the best you can find people will say about vista is that it isn't as bad as most people say. It is just like that softball PC Mag review said - while it offers some small improvements (I acknowledge that) it has no must have feature or element and ultimately most of what vista adds can still be had in XP without the performance issues, driver issues, instability, and interoperability issues. So again, I suggest the issue with Vista is NOT that it is so terrible (allthough in some ways I believe it is) the real issue is that XP is just so much better and is available with out the issues.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
Your problem is with 64 bit OS PERIOD. Not Vista. Nobody is supporting 64bit, and thats why your having problems.
EXACTLY. Vista was delayed what? Almost 3 years. So maybe 2011 Vienna will hit the shelves, who will be using XP then? Be realistic.
I have to disagree, 2011 is only 3 years and some months away.
Vista provides no reason to upgrade from XP, in fact it provides plenty of reasons not too.
Reality is THIS, XP is good, but Vista is a lot more robust, and TODAYS market demands great multimedia technology, clean looking graphical interface, and ease of use. Vista eclipses XP in these catagories. People don't ask for a faster OS, they ask for faster hardware, and a more robust OS. Thats what they got. Maybe the hardcore enthusist won't be happy about giving up 15% of their proformance for what Vista brings to the table, BUT THEY DID WHEN XP CAME OUT, EVENTUALY. XP had the same problems Vista WAS having 6 months ago.
This self absorbed critic AgntSmith even said himself he ueses it on his old Media Center PC, and he Dual Boots it. For somebody that thinks it's SO INCREDIBLY TERRIBLE hes using vista an awful lot. Imagine the people that don't have the pessimistic view he has.
When it comes to games, Vista is slower. If you wanted PURE speed, You'd go back to Windows ME, because its faster yet then XP. Speed isn't the only factor these days so. ME only has DX9.3(Maybe not the exact, but its missing some of the DX9 that XP has) OHHHH you thought DX10 was the FIRST DX to be forced into a NEW OS? LOL NOPE!!! DX9 wasn't picked up untill 2 years after its release by Windows ME.
If this person knew anything about marketing a NEW OS, He wouldn't be so blind to the fact that, ALL the complaints hes zipping off here, were the SAME EXACT complaints about XP a Decade ago. The Industry hasn't changed, the customers HAVE. People are more demanding.
I can't comment on the robustness of Vista, I can comment on XP and I have been running XP without needing a reinstall for over 2 years or any problems.
As for the interface being cleaner in Vista, apart from the Aeroglass surely XP can be skinned up just as well. If it can't then I am sure Microsoft could have updated XP without too much effort.
Sorry but a nicer screen to hold my icons is not a reason to spend lots of money. Running an OS doesn't give you pleasure its the games , music, movies etc that do that, the OS should be irrellevant.
What is with all the warnings as well, they are just superflous in Vista. An OS should be unobtrusive.
You are cluless, I got suported drivers and software for x64, els i would have installed 32 so its really vista. THERE is allot of software supported with x64, alost all i got installed. Thoe they do not use x64 recourses fully if thats what you meen.
I run Vista x64 and have zero problems with it now. When Vista got released I had problems with ATI drivers and Creative drivers. Both of which I remember well had driver problems when XP came out. Crappy Creative drivers I am use to, I never expect them to ever get it right. I'm not even using the current driver set because the May X-fi drivers cause massive static. A lot of posts on their forums about it. ATI drivers get better every month with Vista x64.
All that being said, in my experience Vista is following the same route as the problems XP had at release, both in customer complaints and crummy drivers. Right now my machine is fast and stable. Maybe not as fast and or stable as XP but everything works in my Vista x64.
It does appear to me that Vista x64 is picking up in adoption. Microsoft orphaned XP x64 shortly after its release it seems.
.. .... .- - . - .-. --- .-.. .-.. ... .-- .... --- .-. . .--. --- .-. - .-.-.-
--------------------------------------------------------
Promote what you love instead of bashing what you hate.
www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/default.mspx
Last poster is corerct, If you have xp pro you can test it out. Was thinking about it, but i bet after i install my machine will never be the same.
Toms review and benchmarks
www.tomshardware.com/2005/08/23/windows_xp_x64/page9.html
VISTA 64, SHOULD have been the ONLY Vista RELEASED. It's up to somebody to make the choice for society. I would love to see Vienna released ONLY in 64bit, and if YOU absolutely needed it, you could get the 32 bit by requesting it via mail / webpage, like Vista is right now, only they do the reverse, 32 bit included 64 bit Optional. MY next machine will be 64bit Vista, but I'm going to hold off, and hand pick my pieces as to make sure I have as little problems as I can.
The problem isn't with 64 bit OS's, its with driver adoption of hardware manufacturers.
Your missing what makes Vista good. NOT in how it looks, but how everything is organised. If you do a search on vista for files and folders, its almost instantanious, instead of seconds of the hour glass you get with XP.
People don't need to be computer experts to set up nextworks, or share files, VISTA also is very easy to share 1 printer over a network, without needed a NETWORK printer. Vista offers a LOT to the normal user. People who can set everything they need up in XP, without help won't gain nearly as much as your common person. Your every day person gains a lot of ease of use, and new options for multimedia. Vista almost configures everything automaticly, very simple easy to follow steps. IF YOU DON'T like vista, its because you haven't used enough of it. IF your only using it for MS OFFICE, OUTLOOK, And a game or two. WELL YEAH I GUESS vista isn't much different from XP, and a Porche isn't much different from a GoCart if all your doing is putzing around at 3 MPH.
Oh there way to much discussion above to respond to. Dunno why people are feeling so hostile though its a good discussion. Anyways I've pulled out some quotes which kind of raise points for myself. There in italics
"You guys don't understand that technology HAS to progess. And it WILL progess. Vista and DX10 may of come in a little bit early but its the next step in technology. why are u trying to push it away"
I think the debate is not whether how much progression windows Vista is but rather what progression has it made and is it worth the upgrade troubles and price tag. I am a beleiver that vista is simply not worth the trouble.
"Vista isn't for YESTERDAYS computers. I've been trying to say this a hundred times and ANTI-CHange Agent has battled with me on everything about it. "
Sorry but as someone how has used linux for a number of years and seen the scalability of that particular range of OS's. Microsoft dont understand the word scalability and certainly I feel dubious as to the bloatware nature of Vista. This isnt about anti -progression its also because I'd like to see the same OS running on older devices and devices such as palmtops etc;. Good software is scalable and suits end users needs. Irony is, vista is almost identicle to XP under the hood ( modified kernel, some kernel interface to improve security, same filesystem) so where is all the extra GB installation coming from ? Imagine one day waking up and installing a new linux kernel only to find the system itself needs GB's more space. No one in 'nix land would take that crap. M$ on the other hand are going crazy and there shooting themselves in the foot.
If you think this is nonsense then I will say this. I've tried a range of linux distro from small, lightweight to big ones and the lightweight ones invariably run faster than the larger distro's. In essence you can use scalability to fit the OS to your needs. Not fitting your hardware to an OS needs. MS needs to learn this lesson and fast...
"Well, XP doesn't FULLY untilize Multimore Processing, but Vista doesn't exactly do the best job itself. "
Another sign of vistas rushed release. I would expect and still hope vista uses multi cores more efficiently. I know that newer linux kernels have support for symetric mutli processing at least, this is an on going incremental development thing too. If true this isnt impressive for *the* mainstream OS in the world today. SMP is hot shit and its not going away.
"..and the more labor intesive processes that are going on at one time,"
I hope all those process are vital ones and nothing frivolous. I have heard vista goes process crazy but can be trimmed.
However, the damage is allready done to vista's rep and the poor deployment in 2007 and not getting SP1 until Feb/March of 2008 will likely kill any real hope of Vista supplanting XP.
As anyone wise man knows not to get a new M$ operating system till least service pack one but vienna impending debut, this 2008 schedule doesn't singly bode well for vista. As for the date of vienna, well I'd like to say that it would be post 2009 BUT technology wont dictate this markets will and M$ will simply plug another groundbreaking OS using the power of marketing. (Which always invaribly involves a campaign to encourage families to make photobooks and video editing like this is a new thing... mac's.. ahem anyone...)
In the end if you've got vista and performance is fine then stick with it. If you've not yet upgraded then dont bother until directX10 games ONLY become the norm.. and remeber age of conan is both directx 9 and directx10!
"IF YOU DON'T like vista, its because you haven't used enough of it. "
Or your lucky AND computer savvy enough to install a range of alternative OS's and you realise Windows as a whole has severe limitations and obvious advantages?
I would love to see Vienna released ONLY in 64bit, and if YOU absolutely needed it, you could get the 32 bit by requesting it via mail / webpage,
I see your not a great believer in backwards compatability then ? Are you sure you dont have shares in any hardware companies ?!?! Why would one make it so hard to get there product to the widest possible audience !
It doesn't matter WHAT Company you work for in the industry, be it INTEL, AMD, DELL, HP, OCZ, ASUS, ANY of them, They pretty much ALL AGREE, that 64 bit processing, is the next big step in creating more powerful PC's. The problem isn't in finding the next big step, its convinceing the foolish masses, that they would benifit, from this change. People (CERTAIN PEOPLE) arn't smart enough to recognise progress. Remember the big debate about switching to 32 bit processing? It was the same battle then as it now, only NOW hardware is growing faster then Software, and so as hardware gets faster, to make new possiblities with computers possible, theres no direct NEED for a huge overhaul. There are ways to make 32 bit programs run on a 64 bit OS, don't you see DOS prompt when you type "CMD" in the RUN box, on XP ??? DOS isn't 32bit.... IT's important that Vienna does what it can to work as well as possible with 32 bit applications, but theres nobody thats going to disagree with the fact that 64bit processing holds a significant improvement in the computer industry.
I really wanna know who has read this far in this thread? And if this thread is actually relevant to anything AoC anymore.
Bollocks!
More robust? How so? Name one thing Vista does better (not the same, not almost the same, and not with prettier colors than XP. Fact is if you are honest the answer is nothing. Many slight improvements in Vista but even as the review you quoted said all those improvements are available in different ways in XP as well. And XP never had the same problems Vista does because XP offered so many things that where COMPLETELY UNAVAILABLE in 98, 98SE, and Me. SO in a way the transition pain is similar and understandable but with Vista you get NOTHING for the pain save some stuff built into Vista that has to be added to XP albeit the Vista versions are questionable in terms of being as good (IE Vista integrated search is nice but not as good as Google desktop in XP).
I am self absorbed? You are the one who is arguing that because you don't mind the issues it is all fine and dandy. I dual boot it because I cannot stand the problems long enough to stick with it, I also switch back to XP for games unless doing testing and comparison, and I use it to learn it but the reality is the more I learn the more I agree with what most experts are saying about its problems. And so what I used vista for a media center PC - I have also used MythTV running on Linux and while Media Center works nicely I could just as easily use XP Media Center as it is exactly the same (although when I get around to it I will be switching back to MythTV as it offers more capabilities). But this discussion is about Vista as a gaming platform, where performance matters. The discussion is also about DX10 and its future given that it is tied to an OS that is not getting good buzz and not getting deployed well because developers will never fully realize the DX10 promises if people don't have DX10 capability - and even if that changes hey are unlikely to go make special DX10 PC games when that means making a DX9-ish version for consoles that cannot do the DX10 stuff. As for allot of people - nearly the whole PC industry is critical of Vista - are you deaf or do you live in another dimension. Even large MS partners have been openly critical (notably Acer, Dell, and HP).
Since this discussion has been about Vista gaming thanks for admitting that you are wrong. As for your reference back to XP and Me give me a break - ME was so universally hated, such a POS that even MS acknowledged it was a poor product. ME never outperformed anything, in fact it was so unstable and flaky it was universally hated. Perhaps you mean 98SE - yes, it had allot if dedicated believers who didn't ant to switch. But XP offered so many new things that 98SE could NOT do that it easily won out once the first few months settled in. Referring to ME as anything but total crap shows your lack of knowledge and utter foolishness on this subject.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
I'm gonna say system restore. I have used this a lot in both OS's and by far Vista system restore totally out does XP system restore. In fact I was kinda amazed on how well it worked over XP.
I had to use it several times with Creative drivers that gave me all kinds of problems, and a few times on ATI drivers.
Not related to xp vs vista, but ReadyBoost, which isn't in XP but since using it I can tell a difference in how applications open.
Everything works on this end so no complaints here, but hey everything worked for me in WinME too.
.. .... .- - . - .-. --- .-.. .-.. ... .-- .... --- .-. . .--. --- .-. - .-.-.-
--------------------------------------------------------
Promote what you love instead of bashing what you hate.
I will give you system restore, and go further saying shadow copy in general is better - as is the windows backup system if you have a version with the ability to do complete PC backups (XML based image, essentially). ReadyBoost - most reputable reviews have shown it to be fairly useless to anyone without very little RAM (512 or less), although there are some reports (even some anonymous ones from Redmond) that it is not working as intended so perhaps SP1 clears that up. My experience and testing has been that it is of no use to a system with adequate RAM. But again, not slamming the features as they are improved for $20 you can get Norton Ghost for XP (or vista for a tad more as you need the latest version) which is better than any of those options in terms of a complete backup and system protection system. I also think that it is fair to say that the vast majority of users are not capable of taking advantage of system restore or imaging or ghost anyways though so again, a nice improvement but hardly worth the myriad of negatives and when you get right down to it the capability can be easily added to XP.
Vista is full of such things - BCedit is far superior to the XP's boot.ini files, PE 2.0 is better than 1.6, and the built in tools for recovery, management, and repair of a Vista installation are better than XPs but at what cost. I can get all the functionality of a Vista system in XP with third party apps (free and otherwise). Most times those third party apps are far better than the improved elements of Vista. Again, it isn't about how bad Vista is - it is about how Vista is compared to XP and in comparison the many improvements, minor as they may be in many cases, just do not overcome the drawbacks of the performance issues, stability issues, and interoperability issues.
Consider back to Win9x to XP - there was allot of early pain (although, for the most part, the worst of it was resolved within a few months of release) but the gains from Win9x to XP where huge. You didn't just get a slightly better featureset you got entirely new capabilities. You didn't just get the same thing with a better design to it you got entirely new ways of doing new things and you got core changes to the kernel that made it possible to go from Win9x forward to where we are now. And most importantly, while it did take some more horsepower to do this stuff you got far more back in capability than you gave in resources. Additionally, 9x to XP was at the BEGINNING of the Moore's law curve where you could afford to exploit resources as it was no problem to wait a matter of months to get twice as many resources from new technology. Today is different - for the most part processors are at a wall in terms of speed, heat, and power - GPUs are against a similar wall although one as much made of money as silicon. 32bit addressing is against the wall as well meaning no more adding in a gig of RAM every year to recharge your system to that 'sweet spot'. It is a different time now with XP to Vista than it was with 9x to XP. Todays more money, much more, is made from console games than from PC games - so upping the ante in PC gaming (DX10) when consoles are stuck in place but are driving development is not going to get us much especially with the performance issues considered (DEVs are not going to build a DX9 version for consoles and rebuild a DX10 version for PCs). Again, is a different time now than it was then even if the comparison of XP to Vista was appropriate (and it isn't as I mentioned Vista is a series of minor improvements and not real innovations or capability increases).
That being said - if I where not a gamer I would probably be arguing something similar to what Tachyon is and saying that while Vista has issues in time they will be resolved over time (although the resolving is going way to slow) and it will mature, most likely, into a capable successor. But i do game, I do use my computer in such a way that performance matters (even outside of games) and Vista is measurably and noticeably slower, less stable, and outright flaky in those situations (among others). The point isn't whether Vista sucks or not - the point is whether it is a good gaming platform and whether what it offers in terms of DX10 promises will ever even be realized due to the previously mentioned issues of poor deployment, questionable performance, and the new problem (not an issue when XP came out) of DX10 taking things beyond what consoles can do when PC games are already getting less attention than consoles.
I haven't even brought up Vista's DRM issues, stricter licensing (severe virtualization restrictions among them), pricing (not bad OEM but pretty steep at retail, networking/wireless issues, and a number of other non-gaming specific issues. I am not trying to flame Vista - I believe in time it will be fixed up enough (in terms of the bigger things) to be a nice 'luxury' desktop OS. But as a gaming platform it has major issues and time matters as DX10 is tied to Vista and without broad and quick adoption DX10 stands little to no chance of attracting developers since ONLY Vista can use it (not XP and not consoles which represent 99% of the gaming market). I really think that MS screwed up here and has just gotten so big that they are too detached from their customers - committees on committees and all that. And it is inevitable that you get so big that you have so many people to please, so many dependents that the weight of addressing all their needs becomes unbearable. That is where MS and Vista is IMHO. Will Linux and others rise up - perhaps. But I think it is more likely that Vista will just linger, slowly - it won't really be the next Me but it will NEVER be XP. In fact, nothing will probably ever be XP again.
P.S. Tachyon - I saw this article and thought you would find it interesting, it is talking about the new breed of 100 Hz LCDs that are coming. Funny how you flamed me for saying that the difference between 40, 50 or so FPS matters when the industry acknowledges that it does make a difference and it is noticeable.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
Reguarding the 100 hz LCD's there are 100's of articles that will argue that 70+ is useless that the eye only see's less then that.
Just so you know, that article also says that 100 hz on TV's is interlaced so it would effectively only be 50hz as a monitor, which your eye can prolly see. 70 hz is where your eye cannot distingquish. They said they could BEARLY see the difference between 25-60hz interlaced which is 12.5-30 hz or FPS and the 100hz which is only ACTUALY 50 FPS. 30hz is uber slow.
TV's and Monitors are different. TV signals are typical much slower and refreshed differently. Interlaced is typical, and Progressive Scan is the better, but much rarer. What that means .... Interlaced alternates lines of resolution A B A B A B. A refreshes, then B refreshes. So your not getting a totaly refresh per HZ. It takes 2 HZ to refresh a screen, and thus 100hz TV = 50 hz actualy refresh rate.
Now what I said still stands true. Your eye cannot see the difference between 70 hz, and 90 hz. HOWEVER your eye could see the difference between 70 FPS, and 293 FPS because you'll get whats called TEARING. Part of the image will refresh on 1 frame, and part of it on another, and TEARING is a BAD thing. This is why a lot of people with insanely good systems use the "Syncronize" feature of the graphics card, which matches your FPS to your HZ, so your getting optimal refresh. ON monitors with Slow speeds like 12ms You would want to turn that off, because it'll look better With it off.
OK SORRY to jump so far back, but What part of ME is FASTER then XP didn't come through clearly?
I NEVER said ME was BETTER then XP. I said ME is FASTER the XP for games.
Your saying XP is better in every way, but its simply not. Vista is better in every way, bar 1, proformance.
Which is TYPICAL of next gerneration OS's .
I dont think people are resisting change. Some people resisting having to fork out more money right away and prefer a safer transition process. Its the same as between 16 and 32 bit. Its the same with SMP verse single, its the same with 32 / 64 bit. For example I have the fortune of using a free to use operating system (ubuntu) I really prefer this over windows but I recently swapped back from the 64bit edition to 32bit. Why ?
I found the real life performance of 64bit to not be that much more than 32bit. Certainly nothing to write home about. I also found several issues with tried and tested programs which just crash and burned on the 64 bit edition. Some software vendors also are slow on uptaking for 64 bit linux ( Adobe flash.. shame on you!). In the end I moved back. I dont deny my processor is 64 bit capable or that 64 bit is the future however I would not like to be lumbered by a massive leap forward and be stuck whilst the rest of the universe catches up. (On a side note I really like Open Source Development for the incremental stages which it makes and doesnt ram the latest greatest thing down my throat but is reliable and not about to be made redundant).
Even M$S are not so stupid as to do some massive leap of technological doo-hickery. All M$ releases have pandered to backward compatibility ( buiness in particular dont want to take some unknown risk onboard). For example, like you say, good old DOS is still present in XP albeit in a new form. Though I have to say DOSBOX is better than MS own efforts at running really old DOS programs.
In some ways perhaps the above is what annoys myself about directx10. It could most probably with much effort (which I expect from *the* leading OS makers in the world) made to run on XP. But we all know that directX10 is a cynical ploy to get people to buy vista which is (IMHO) very new feature light anyays. Sorry but thats how I feel. One day I will use directx10 (unless openGL version X kicks its sorry ass.. I can hope).. but I will not buy a new operating system for it *without* other advantages.
And lets be honest not every technological advancement (excluding the biggies right now) is a good as marketing wants us to beleive. Vista falling to this category for myself. The real morons are those that buy every marketing ploy and lap up every advancement in technology just to see it equally as discarded by the wayside. Vista is going to fall by the wayside to vienna and vienna is nearer than we probably could think, especially as I said above in light of the service pack for vista being 2008 !
You wont like me saying this but MS is losing its grip somewhat. Not a lot but for a company that enjoys a monopoly it is enough.
True TVs are a different animal but the principal is what I was pointing out. Believe you me, if the difference between 60 Hz interlaced and 100 Hz interlaced is noticeable it will be far more noticeable on a computer with progressive scanning. All that being said - for the msot part so long as you are getting 60 or above FPS and you have an LCD you are probably getting a smooth enough picture, it isn't like a CRT where 60 looks fairly flickery. But, more is better and while 200 FPS might be overkill 40 to 60 and 60 to 80 or so and above helps.
I agree that Vista is more in its element for the average dufus user - but that is not a gamer. Many gamers may be morons but on the whole gamers are a rather sophisticated group in terms of computer savvy. And I have been discussing Vista from the gaming platform point of view. Out of games the performance issue can be overcome with a bit more RAM and a good CPU - it is still there, still wasted, still worse for XP but the issue is less in the face. But gamers, and in general enthusiast users, are a force multiplier for Windows - if gamers are not happy then those they advise and support won't be and it snowballs from there. Right now vista has to areas it is pretty terrible for - gamers/enthusiasts and business - it may be good for the third segment the home non-savvy user but it cannot become the next XP without the first two driving it.
ME wasn't faster than XP really - it was apples and oranges. ME was a total disaster on so many levels that Microsoft ended up apologizing for it admitting it had no purpose and was poorly conceived and executed. 98SE was pretty stable and for a short while I suppose you could say it was faster but ONLY at things from its time - XP not only did the new things faster but 98SE couldn't even do them (and not just because MS made some API exclusive for XP) because it lacked the capability completely. XP can physically do anything vista can - even DX10. MS holds DX10 from XP because it is the only reason to get Vista over XP in terms of new capabilities instead of small improvements (successful ones or not).
I suppose we will just agree to disagree, I see what you are getting at with Vista in terms of its improvements - but so many of those improvements (most are of the small nature type) are just refreshes and certainly not new capabilities or anything of that sort like we had with 9x to XP. On the flip side of the coin to those improvements are major stability, compatibility, and performance issues - it just doesn't add up. Spend a high cost to get something that offers many minor improvements (some of which are not properly working - wireless, file operations, etc) and break stability, performance, and compatibility. It is like taking a step forward but two steps back. i will give you that vista has the step forward in it but you have to admit that right now the steps back outweigh it especially when talking about it from the standpoint of gaming.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD