John Galt Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 My other partition is Vista Ultimate, 32 bit, and I'm on a Dell D820 laptop. Honestly, I appreciate Vista's superior power management capability, as well as DX10(although I can emulate that with wine on ubuntu now), and it is a LOT more visually appealing than XP (I love the Gadget bar). However, I've only got one gig of RAM right now, so I can run Counter-strike and StarCraft on Linux through an emulator(wine) more efficiently than I can on Vista. After I scrape together enough cash to buy another gig of RAM, we'll see how it runs then, but for now Vista will only be used when I absolutely CAN'T do something on Ubuntu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 Sabre - if unrestricted bottlenecks and code written ground up to provide for advanced graphical processes means nothing(it probably may) then all I can say is.... keep using xp! Anyway, you shouldnt need to be convinced by anyone by argument alone that Vista is good or not. The best way to do it is to try it and decide for yourself. Mind you, there will be a time - it could be 2-3 years, where if you have any attachment to gaming at all, you'll probably get knocked off your naysayers high horse and go down to the local market in your part of the world and buy Vista Ultimate for a fwe rupees and off ya go Everything else, security, coding etc may not have that much relevance to most users around here - but gaming ... There will be the eventual shift when games will simply be written for Vista only (just like some games would only ever work on XP(or above) and not its predecessors eg. NWN2) This isnt because MS and Bill Gates are evil and want to take all your hard earned .. but because software devs will be eventually *only* be using the Direct x 10 sdk to make their games as it will allow them the most flexibility to bring their creative visions to a game and apply it with a complexity that is unprecedented... eg. can you imagine a time where bluray drives sit standard in most high end gamers pcs... a dev will know that a 50gb footprint is the parameters they have to maximise the hardware potential to make some truly complex/interactive and visually stunning titles... Im not an MMORPG fan or even a FPS fan, but Age of Conan and Crysis just look great, not just because of the eye candy, but also for the awesome things you will be able to do....(if previews are a guide anyway).. Time will tell Quite simply, it will eventually not be cost productive for devs to continue to dedicate time and resources to backwards code for XP(or less) using the DX9 SDK.. All that really needs for this to be pushed through is (and when it happens it will happen REALLY fast) for a few really huge DX10 titles to hit the streets and then hordes of gamers will be switching or at least dual booting. Most serious gamers have no concept of OS loyalty that Ive ever seen.... If Lucasarts said "OK we're releasing Force Unleashed on OSX, so many SW PC gaming fans will go and get a mac it's not funny.... just like a few of us are getting a 360 or ps3 just to play TFU or Mass Effect or Final Fantasy XIII etc... I know a boatload of FPS nuts that have spent $$$ just getting their rigs crysis ready.. Now, we should get to work on that Civ + Total War + WOWesque Time travelled/History themed MMORPG we were talking about, and make some crazy $$$ check out the nvidia dx10 tech demo for faces.... dx9/xp wont do this Clicky Cmon sabrez When valve makes a DX10 half life sequel utilising tech liek in teh demo above.. you'll be all over Vista/DX10 - admit it ! mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 I just didn't feel like repeating everything Astro has already said But I think it's true, mid-range PC's nowadays are mid/high end for XP, but low end for Vista, same as it was when XP was just released...It's not MS's fault that hardware/software manufacturers aren't quick enough to release drivers for Vista... But what does the speed of the PC have to do with whether Vista is able to run older hardware/software? That was my point. Saying people are whiny bitches who can't afford a good system to run Vista on doesn't address the complaints I was commenting on. Having the best Vista system in the world doesn't address them. And I never said it was MS's fault... wha....you still use 2000!?? Isnt there a hippie commune where you all hang out' date=' mostly naked I heard [/quote']Not quite (to the first part). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Negative Sun Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 But what does the speed of the PC have to do with whether Vista is able to run older hardware/software? That was my point. That'll all be solved in due time, just like it was with XP and all the OSes before that...I'm pretty sure some tech heads will make XP emulators for Vista to run XP only stuff on, just like they made MS-DOS and Win98/95 emulators to run our beloved Dark Forces, JK, etc. on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 That'll all be solved in due time, just like it was with XP and all the OSes before that...I'm pretty sure some tech heads will make XP emulators for Vista to run XP only stuff on, just like they made MS-DOS and Win98/95 emulators to run our beloved Dark Forces, JK, etc. on... MS Virtual PC is a free download from MS and can launch XP from within vista no probs The somewhat better virtualisation program vmware isnt free though mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Negative Sun Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 Well done tech heads! Quicker than I thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 That'll all be solved in due timeIt is the "due time" part that some people are having issue with (from a pragmatic standpoint). Again, not that this isn't expected or blameworthy, just a fact of life that deters some people from upgrading at this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Negative Sun Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 True, I didn't switch to XP straight away either, took me about a year (give or take a few months lol), nor will I switch to Vista until there are more DX10 cards out there and actual games that need DX10 to run... I would like to switch to Vista (Ultimate *drools*) right now, but it's not a necessity, like for most other people out there. Until then, I'm building a new system for XP so it can rip any DX9 game out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 Coolio. If only everyone had the resources to do such a thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Negative Sun Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 I don't have them either...some people use credit for useless things like cars and mortgages and stuff, I just want a decent PC lol [/uber geek] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tk102 Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 True, I didn't switch to XP straight away either, took me about a year (give or take a few months lol), nor will I switch to Vista until there are more DX10 cards out there... I'll switch to XP when you switch to Vista, Negative Sun. * odd sod goes back to his hippie commune * Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediKnight707 Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 >_> <_< Am I the only one who doesn't know what Windows ME was? (I know it was a Windows OS, but what's the hatred for it?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 Isnt there a hippie commune where you all hang out, mostly naked I heard *rubs eyes* *rubs eyes again* This is good lesson to the knockers above.... Oh, oh... *Jae splashes down into the sewer with RJM's brain....* welcome to the club....this is where the babes are at .......... [/NOT!] mtfbwya Aw, I'm hurt! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingerhs Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 well, my thoughts about Vista were summed up very well in a post i made at the Xfire forums. i'll repeat them here: i'll pick Vista over XP almost any day of the week. Vista is markedly better than XP in terms of security, especially with the firewall on Ultimate and Business versions. the networking is also much easier to use as its now more of a plug & play system, but it still has all the nice networking features from XP Pro for configuring the network. another nice feature is the GUI. the new Aero desktop is a nice touch, and it can finally compete with OS X with a slick interface. the 64-bit version is really nice in terms of performance over 64-bit XP and 32-bit versions of both Vista and XP as it really allows you to take better advantage of high-end hardware and lots of RAM. the biggest advantage is DX10. it may not be here yet in terms of games, but it won't take long for the majority of games to take full advantage of DX10. for now, XP will suffice for about another year or so for most people. after that, the upgrade to Vista should almost be a necessity for most PC gamers as more and more DX10 titles hit the market. right now, there are relatively few driver conflicts unless you're using the 64-bit version. even then, the 64-bit version still doesn't have much in the way of driver conflicts. with that in mind, you also have to consider that Vista is the most stable OS Microsoft has released for the mainstream segment. every NT-based and 9x based operating systems were never as stable as Vista is (except for 2000. that one was pretty close). even at the launch, the problems with Vista were not related to the OS itself with the exception of people trying to install Vista on computers that did not meet the requirements. the only issues have been with drivers, and that has been mostly remedied. most games work just fine with Vista, and the ones that don't can usually be resolved by running the games in XP SP2 Compatibility Mode or resolved by running the game as an administrator. there's a slight performance decrease by running games on 32-bit Vista, but the performance drop with 64-bit Vista is even less. overall, if you're building a new high-end gaming computer, there's no good reason why you should stick with XP outside of familiarity. low-end computers won't benefit as much, but you might as well stick with the OS that will be the prevalent OS within the next couple of years. that sums it up rather nicely. and just keep this in mind: most of what i've said is based on what i've seen either from working on my personal computer or from working on computers up at work. hehe, i've also rather conspicuously had the time to examine performance differences between 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Vista with identical hardware on two computers we have up at work; so my claims that i've stated above about the performance differences between the two are directly from my own tests. @JediKnight707 - Windows ME was released shortly after Windows 2000 as a cheaper alternative for mainstream buyers while 2000 was aimed at businesses and people that needed an upgrade from Windows NT 4.0. the differences between the two operating systems were almost extreme since Windows 2000 was based on NT while ME was based on Windows 98. since NT was always designed for networking, it has been a much more stable kernel than any of the 9x operating systems (3.11, 95, 98, and ME), and Microsoft has continued to update and utilize the old NT kernel in the form of XP, Vista, and Server 2003. the biggest problem with ME, however, is that it was even less stable than Windows 98, and it didn't offer a markedly improved set of features. even well after the launch and several updates, ME was still riddled with stability and compatibility issues, and eventually, Microsoft just simply recommended that people using ME should switch back to Windows 98SE or Windows 2000. shortly afterwards, however, Microsoft launched XP, and the world soon forgot the debacle that was Windows ME. hope that helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 ....Aw, I'm hurt! well Jae, in fear of a certain Mandalorian's maiming skills' I didnt want to say it out loud we better not carry on too much though.... the clean police might come through and erase our jovial banter from the thread..... mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Negative Sun Posted August 1, 2007 Share Posted August 1, 2007 the biggest problem with ME, however, is that it was even less stable than Windows 98 That about sums it up for me, I'm glad I never used it as Win98 was a nightmare enough as it was... WinXP has been great to me, even though it's still far from perfect, but I get the feeling from what I've heard from stingerhs and Astro that Vista really takes it up a notch, thanks for that post stingerhs, it explained a lot of the differences between the 32 and 64 bit versions to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.