Ctrl Alt Del Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 I'll get Vista, perhaps, along of a quad-core processor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacTavish Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 I say it's both. I wish they could have made Vista compatible with ALL videogames made before it, instead of having to download patches and other stuff for only SOME of the games to work. But, Vista's Windows Media Center is very good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grievous797 Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 Utter hell, maybe it wont be a living digital hellhole once the newer version comes out.WITHOUT bugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Negative Sun Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 I say it's both. I wish they could have made Vista compatible with ALL videogames made before it, instead of having to download patches and other stuff for only SOME of the games to work. lolz then Vista's release would have been pushed back to about 2050 me thinks... Why is this so hard to understand? Games that were released before Vista were optimized for XP, so if you want to play that game in Vista it's at your own "risk", it's not MS's responsibility to make sure it is compatible with everything out there, that's just unreasonable and rather stupid if you ask me... Don't blame Vista for it, blame developers f the games you like to play for not bringing Vista patches to us. Utter hell, maybe it wont be a living digital hellhole once the newer version comes out.WITHOUT bugs. What kind of "bugs" does it have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swphreak Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 I don't plan on getting Vista until it gets shoved down my throat. Luckily, I got this desktop with XP Pro before OEMs started phasing out it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orzo17 Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 uhm....haven't got it.I'm actually thinking of getting a pc that can support vista,for all the games that are labelled "Next-gen",or "Only for Vista",but then again,I don't have the time for gaming anymore,.Think,i'll wait at least an year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingerhs Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 Yes, listen to stingerhs you must! I'm still jealous of you pal... Do you find that the 64-bit version is better (gaming and otherwise) than the 32-bit version? actually, by using the same computer at work with both the x86 and x64 versions of Vista Ultimate (a duel boot, of course), i can honestly say that the x64 version runs better than the x86 version by almost 10-35% depending on the game. XP still runs games faster (approximately 5-15% better than Vista x64), but that's only because it uses less system resources. and again, i just don't understand why people are so incredibly adamant about sticking with XP over Vista. if you're upgrading your computer, XP is more than adequate, yes, but why not Vista, particularly the x64 version?? the improvements both graphically and security wise are more than enough for someone like me (not to mention that i need to evolve with my field). with gaming, DX10 will make a difference when developers take advantage of it, and that isn't very far off from now either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoffe Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 and again, i just don't understand why people are so incredibly adamant about sticking with XP over Vista. if you're upgrading your computer, XP is more than adequate, yes, but why not Vista, particularly the x64 version?? the improvements both graphically and security wise are more than enough for someone like me (not to mention that i need to evolve with my field). with gaming, DX10 will make a difference when developers take advantage of it, and that isn't very far off from now either. In my case because there is not enough reason to go through the cost and effort to switch to Vista, while there is still plenty of reason to stick with XP (speed, compatibility, less cpu/memory intensive). Vista may have improved security, but this isn't something there is much use for on a home PC if you use common sense and are careful what you install and run. In particular since you're required to disable some of the security measures and use an admin account to get some older games and applications to work properly under Vista anyway. Vista may have some extra pretty lights in (some) games, but that's not enough to justify the rather steep cost of Vista, and the time and effort required to make the switch. If Win XP is sufficient for your needs, why get Vista? The upgrade isn't exactly free, and you can have more fun for that money instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Negative Sun Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 Good point stoffe, except that in that light, is it fair to make Vista out to be the next ME? Vista is expensive (even more so here in the UK believe you me!), and so is getting a decent system to run it on...But it was the exact same when WinXP was released, I was trying to stutter along with 256MB of RAM and an old school Radeon 9600 for Pete's sake, but now you can get that kind of system on Ebay for less than a mobile phone... The systems sold on today's market are perfect for XP, but not for Vista, which is reserved for the hardcore gamers or devs or whatever...I find it only logical that it runs games slower than XP, because: 1) Vista is way cooler but also way more demanding on your system than XP 2) I doubt anyone has forked out for an 8800Ultra or a 2900XT at this point in time, nevermind the 4GB of RAM to go with it... Vista is optimized for DX10 games, and the recommended specs of those games would be enough to put most of our PC to shame at this point in time...So why buy a Vista system to play DX9 games I ask you? It's unfair to judge it at this stage, which is why I find this poll a bit odd to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 Good points, stoffe & NS. At this point, I really see no reason for any home user to go out of their way to upgrade to Vista if they don't have to. It's a different story if you're building or buying a new machine, though. Still, I love this voting option: Hell - go on microsoft, go to hell[/Quote]I LOL'd when I first read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingerhs Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 my thing is this: if you are building/upgrading to a brand new computer with mid to high end hardware, why stick with XP?? i'm not saying that everybody should go run out and upgrade to Vista (quite the opposite, actually). instead, i'm saying that if you have a brand spanking new computer, why would you pick XP over Vista?? the costs are not all that much different if you go by OEM (retail versions are always overpriced), so why stick with XP?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Negative Sun Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 I does depend what you are wanting to do on that compy though, if it's to play DX9 games and then complain that Vista sucks as a gaming OS, I would stick with XP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigundr Posted September 6, 2007 Share Posted September 6, 2007 You just have to give it time. Everyone flamed XP when it first came out just like Vista. It'll get better in the future. Always does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joesdomain Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 Don't know! I still have Windows XP! I have no problems with it so far. Don't know if I will ever get Vista. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 my thing is this: if you are building/upgrading to a brand new computer with mid to high end hardware, why stick with XP?? i'm not saying that everybody should go run out and upgrade to Vista (quite the opposite, actually). instead, i'm saying that if you have a brand spanking new computer, why would you pick XP over Vista?? the costs are not all that much different if you go by OEM (retail versions are always overpriced), so why stick with XP??For me, and I think many others, it is because I still use older software and peripherals that are not supported by Vista. I have heard lots of reports, both first and second hand, about things that I use regularly that don't run properly or at all with Vista. For example, my printer/scanner runs great with XP and I have no problems. But I have read numerous reports about it having issues with Vista. The games I play on the PC are old, but I still play them regularly. I still play JO/JA, X-Wing Alliance, KOTOR and others "a lot" and don't plan on giving them up any time soon. There are lots of reports of these not running on Vista. Now, many of the issues that people are having could possibly be for other reasons that could be rectified one way or another. But as it stands currently why deal with that if you don't have to? Apart from brand new games, my machine can do everything I need it to (browsing, email, older games, all teh simple stuff). So personally I would rather get a new machine with XP and know that everything I want to run on it can run on it, as opposed to getting Vista and dealing with the strong possibility that things I want to run I can't at worst or have to fiddle a lot with at best. And what does Vista provide me that I need right now? It is more appealing to me to be able to get a new machine with XP and wait for Vista to get stuff sorted out and manufacturers get up to speed with it before switching. Am I saying Vista sucks? Not at all. Nor am I saying that these issues won't be worked out over time. But right now there is nothing about Vista that jumps out as a must-have to make the headaches something I'm willing to deal with. This is just a personal view. On top of that, there aren't any games that I can think of off the top of my head that are on the horizon that would make me want to switch. Everything that grabs my interest (Mass Effect, Ace Combat 6, NBA 2K, Halo 3, etc.) are all console titles anyway. I am traditionally a PC gamer, and I wish it wasn't going this way, but the fact is that in the future the vast majority of gaming I do will have to be on a console. Most a pity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alegis Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 In my case because there is not enough reason to go through the cost and effort to switch to Vista, while there is still plenty of reason to stick with XP (speed, compatibility, less cpu/memory intensive). Vista may have improved security, but this isn't something there is much use for on a home PC if you use common sense and are careful what you install and run. In particular since you're required to disable some of the security measures and use an admin account to get some older games and applications to work properly under Vista anyway. Vista may have some extra pretty lights in (some) games, but that's not enough to justify the rather steep cost of Vista, and the time and effort required to make the switch. I disagree with your misinformed opinion. I'd bother to go in very close details, but considering you haven't read much yourself either on the subject considering your prejudices I think I'll only bore you to death. Nonetheless I can try. Everyone ready gentlemen? Yes. It's an upgrade, and it costs money. May be an incentive for some to switch to Linux, but if you consider that's better for gaming I wish you good luck and a cup of coffee for when you wake up. Those who are students will have access to cheap upgrades, those who don't well, the home premium upgrade is $150. That is indeed quite some money. In fact, if you compare it with a chocolate bar - that's a hell of a lot of chocolate! If you compare it to other software packages (mainly applications) and the difference in a mere application and what Vista has to offer, you'll view things in a different perspective. But let's move on. "Wah, it uses so much Ram? Its worthless!" Yep, the requirements are higher, yet can be toned down to disable some extra features if you wish for it. However, RAM management is not worse. Anyways, RAM usage is one hell of a misunderstanding. It's explanation is on different places on the web, but no one bothers to actually do their research before go on ranting sprees. Hell, it's the national sport. That's why I will do it for you. Here you go. Don't like the writing style? Try another. It basically comes down to this:You have to stop thinking of system memory as a resource and start thinking of it as a a cache. Just like the level 1 and level 2 cache on your CPU, system memory is yet another type of high-speed cache that sits between your computer and the disk drive. And the most important rule of cache design is that empty cache memory is wasted cache memory. Empty cache isn't doing you any good. It's expensive, high-speed memory sucking down power for zero benefit. The primary mission in the life of every cache is to populate itself as quickly as possible with the data that's most likely to be needed-- and to consistently deliver a high "hit rate" of needed data retrieved from the cache. Otherwise you're going straight to the hard drive, mister, and if you have to ask how much going to the hard drive will cost you in performance, you can't afford it. It's being used for a reason. It's not wasted. Next point. Speed/Stability. I have two theories as to why people claim XP is more stable:People are used to XP's quirks after so many years They just like to rant . Pick the theory that fits you the best, as it is not less stable. Past 10 months I've had less problems than one month of XP. Only bluescreen I've ever had was with a corrupted external device. And it isn't just me, how about XP users inform themselves by asking Vista users rather than come up with reasons to consider themselves superior as XP users. As for speed, there was one issue with copying files over networks and drives. They released a speed patch earlier, but the issue has been circumvented with SP1. Don't get me wrong here, there is nothing wrong with you using XP. I'm not telling you should switch. I'm merely saying that this unfounded slander isn't really an intelligent way to approach things. Vista is much more stable than XP and feature rich. The RAM clogging is nonsense. I invite you to prove me wrong, but you'll have to do more than wishful thinking just because you want to convince yourself it isn't a better product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Negative Sun Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 Nice one Alegis...I was just reading about the RAM-guzzler myth today as well and it cleared up some things. Fact still is though: when it comes to raw benchmarks and FPS scores on the exact same system, XP comes out on top hands down...But then again: Xp's minimum requirements are laughable compared to Vista's, and as such it's not exactly comparable (if you know what I mean) XP better for games? For DX9 ones maybe, but if you want to step into the future of DX10 you will have to upgrade... A lot of it comes down to drivers as well, most DX9 games have limited or no support at all for Vista, nVidia's SLI is buggy as well apparently and it seems Ati (surprisingly) is managing to boost framerates in Vista with better drivers but "lesser" hardware... A lot of factors to consider it seems, if I were able to upgrade, I'd probably dual-boot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Da_man Posted April 29, 2008 Share Posted April 29, 2008 (in response to the orginal question) WHat I think that people don't like about Vista is that, they don't play the games they like. THink of it like this, XP has been the gaming OS since it came out seven years ago. You kinda have to admire Microsoft for making Halo 2 Vista-only. Not only do they get Halo 2-crazed fans to make impulse uys on flawed technology, they also make money off of the people who try to get around them by sueing them for (I don't know what the real term is but) undermining MS by making an XP patch for it. But, yeah. VIsta is a gaming computer, if you want great graphics and no plotline. Halo 3 had about, say, 10 guys working on the plot, while there were literally hundreds of people working on the textures and stuff. The guys doing the plotline did a great job though. I'm sure there are other games like Halo 2 that are VIsta only, but I wqas only using it as an example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littleman794 Posted May 5, 2008 Share Posted May 5, 2008 Vista Sucks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!the only thing good about it is it's graphics capability!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.