Here is an interesting ally with me on the opinion I have been pushing here, Bill Gate's replacement at MS:
APC: Vista has been criticised for having too few improvements over XP. However, having followed the betas closely and interviewed some of the Vista developers, what is evident to me is that there is an enormous amount of functionality waiting to be tapped, like the Windows Communication Framework and Windows Presentation Foundation. How long do you think it will be before the developer community hooks into Vista's Ôhidden features'?
Craig Mundie: The way I think of platforms and their evolution broadly is that they always go in cycles and the cycle has two components or two waves to it. The first wave I call the diffusion cycle and the second the exploitation cycle.
Developer communities really only function in the large in the exploitation phase and the platform has to largely be established at scale before people move to really capitalise on its intrinsic capabilities.
So the diffusion cycle is always driven by a small number of similar applications or things that have broad appeal. That tends to get the platform out there and once it's out there you can then educate people about these other benefits and they essentially move gradually from their platform model to the new platform model.
Microsoft has done that successively, over and over again, even in the evolution from DOS to Windows, then to Windows NT-based technologies and now on to Vista.
The same thing is happening between generations of phones, game machines and IPTV technology.
So Vista is in its diffusion cycle and until there is enough of it out there, you won't really see the developer community come across.
So far, we have delivered about 60 million copies. That would represent about six per cent of the global Windows install base. So it has probably got to get up another few percentage points before you will start to see a big migration of the developer community. But I think that the tools are there to support that. More tools are coming online that I think are also important, like the Silverlight technologies and of course the .Net framework, which has been broadly adopted now.
So those things come together and then you get this big shift. I don't think it will take many, many years, but I don't think it will happen in the next few weeks either.
Even MS's top technology officer is admitting what I have been saying - that for Vista to succeed it needs market penetration. 60 million copies in a year when it is offered on just about every new PC built is PITIFUL. 6% market share after nearly one full year when a good chunk of those 60 million and that 6% are enterprise sales which are summarily wiped and rolled back to XP (pretty standard fair with businesses) is atrocious. The same thing applies to DX10 and what he is saying above is what I have been saying on why DX10 is likely to not materialize in terms of the promises that it offers.
Originally posted by FE|Tachyon Defrag, and Stop Defrag, Seems like thats all it really needs. Oh you miss the little bars moving around.. Because THATS very helpful. It's prolly because most industry professional seem to think that, it was entirely unnessasry. Defrag still optomises disk proformance, removed a graphical representation of a small physical space occupied by a 1 or a 0, hardly seems like we've lost anything. I can list hundreds of reasons Vista is a good OS. I'm not saying XP isn't good. XP is still great for people very familure with XP, but this is a very small precentage of the masses, and to think that the wheels of change will stop just for me is nieve at best. I can fight the wind, or learn to fly. Sorry you disagree, but aside from a few very negative reviews 9 months ago, Vista now gets much better reviews then the XP Lovers will have you believe.
Yeah, not being able to select what drives you want to defrag or see what % is complete is totally useless - I mean, who needs that?
I've disable live search, ftp, reporting, and now superfetch, change to classic int, disable aero and 5 or so other services, am now using cmd defrag - and things are working quite well, but there's nothing I've seen so far that would sway me over to installing vista on any of our 300 work pc's either now, or in the foreseeable future.
Sure, the security seems better, but there are a LOT of negatives that out weigh that - including compatability & performance concerns.
I can tell you SP1 fixes allot of the performance issues, allot. 3D gaming is not one of those fixes, I mean SP1 helps that a bit but it still lags behind XP noticeably. But in the end, the real problem with Vista is not what is wrong with it but the why. there just isn't enough right, enough better, to warrant the changeover. DX10 could be great but how many games will be truly DX10 given the slow turnover to Vista? And how many people will have enough rig to run Vista and tolerate the performance dropoff even if DX10 pans out?
Word is that Crysis has some rather large differences between the DX9 and DX10 variants - game centric changes like the destructible trees and such only being possible in DX10. This will provide a push to Vista/DX10 - but I think people are going to be so put off by the performance issues and it could backfire and seal Vista's fate. Of course, it is possible that Crysis works code magic and runs great on Vista - that will be the key.
And the most important thing is that an important developer as Carmack said there aren't anything in dx10 that is not available in dx9 (more or less)
In AoC the use of Dx10 is their way to have shinny effects on the screen with less CPU usage. Anyway, the version in dx9 is limited seriously, and personally, i prefer to decide myself where is the limit for my Win XP and my dx9 graphic card.
DX 10 is coming, and you can play AOC with DX 9. Just save up till then, you got to make the transfer someday anyway.
AmazingAveryAge of Conan AdvocateMemberUncommonPosts: 7,188
You guys should read the new PC gamer mag (N American) where Dx10 is all layed out in games coming out such as AoC, Hellgate London, Bioshock and with like a dozen developers from different big companies (Nvidia, Intel, Capcom, Relic, HP and Microsoft etc) saying what the difference is to them. The pictures certainley show up the difference in alot of the dozen or so games listed there.
It might be hype, but some of the pictures show why in a justified way, but pictures are the game, but many of these guys say with the new drivers released lately that performance in the real word is coming along nicely.
Here is a snippet from AoC article:
"Compared to DirectX 9, DirectX 10 is able to do things much faster - usually in fewer render passes. This means that we can throw in more objects in the scene, more effects, and more advanced mapping, lighting and shader-techniques. You have more flexibility [as a developer], [and] there are fewer limitations and many more handy mechanisms for us to batch [process] a lot of the work. This all [translates into] speed gains, which, in turn, gives us the chance to either throw in more already-existing ojects and effects in the scene, or we can have a go at more advanced algorrithms and shaders to produce better visual results.
The DX10 cards are getting cheaper and cheaper so that's a good reason for upgrading. The hardware is in a good state, and the drivers are being optimized and improved all the time. Personally, I wouldn't wait long to buy."
- Pal Frogner Hansen, Project Director (AoC)
Anyway the rest is a good read, and you and see from screens like "World in Conflict" and "Hellgate London" the differences each company talks about.
With respect to AoC, between now and launch there are many games with support for both DX9 and DX10 coming out that you can kinda judge how the game might look, not to mention any media coming out between now and then.
Again, I have no doubt that DX10 offers a technically superior rendering path than does DX9 - that isn't the issue and that isn't why I am expressing concern over DX10. Microsoft has dictated that DX10 will only be allowed to work in Vista, so as such things are only as good as thier lowest common denominator the issue of DX10 success becomes, inextricably, one of Vista success.
Vista is NOT doing well - it is gaining little market penetration (in terms of hte whole Windows pie) and momentum is falling rather than increasing. What I maintain with DX10 is that it doesn't matter how good it is if nobody out there has it nobody in developer world will code for it. It is simple economics. We have seen this from every DX10/DX9 hybrid so far - the DX10 stuff is ancillary and not very much than small eye candy over the DX9 version. Furthermore, the dual path thing has shown major performance issues on the DX10 side. Further complicating the adopting of DX10 is the console market. Consoles are DX10 so any game that wants to fully take advantage of DX10 will have to be made, essentially, twice - once for DX9 PCs and consoles and once for DX10 PCs. This is not remotely viable so DX10 gets window dressing treatment resulting in the less than stellar stuff we have seen to date.
Time will tell, I am not saying Vista and DX10 will never come around. But for the foreseeable future DX10 simply doesn't have enough of a deployment base to really get the attention needed to folesh out all it offers. Crysis will be big, VERY BIG, for DX10. If it sells well and if it truly offers something in DX10 that is far above what it offers in DX9 (early reports say it does) and the gamers flock over to DX10 to get that differance then things could change by this time next year - if not then DX10 is likely as DOA as Vista seems to be.
AmazingAveryAge of Conan AdvocateMemberUncommonPosts: 7,188
98% of everything I've read in relation to Dx10 in he last 2 months say that it has come around now, or about to.
I would argue the general consensus is that Vista's installation base is already there, game titles aren't. Xp will be cut off from being bundled with PC's from the end of the year anyway. Hasn't Vista sold more than XP did in its first quarter? so to compare it to the whole Windows Pie Share is a bit drastic. Anyway I think things will be better sooner than you think Agt Smith
You said a couple thing that need commenting so let me try breaking it up...
Originally posted by AmazingAvery
98% of everything I've read in relation to Dx10 in he last 2 months say that it has come around now, or about to.
DX10 hasn't changed at all - it is not in question. The economics of developing for it (really developing for it and not just making a DX9 game have a few DX10 elements) with its small install base and the fact that any work done creating DX10 rendering paths is lost in the important console market is in question.
Originally posted by AmazingAvery
I would argue the general consensus is that Vista's installation base is already there, game titles aren't. Xp will be cut off from being bundled with PC's from the end of the year anyway. Hasn't Vista sold more than XP did in its first quarter? so to compare it to the whole Windows Pie Share is a bit drastic.
This couldn't be more wrong. Even MS says that Vista at this point is only at about 6% of the windows install market, the real number is quite a bit lower. And of that real number the percent that are capable of gaming is minuscule - according to the most thorough hardware survey (Valve) DX10 gaming hardware represents less than 2% of the market. Let me back up a bit, the 'real' number of Vista install verses the number MS claims. A big, big chunk of Vista sales are OEM machines sold to enterprises - which promptly wipe it and install XP because they are volume license partners who can install whatever they want. So whatever number MS touts is seriously inflated because it represents only what was on the thing when it left Dell or HP or whatever and not what is on it when in service. Additionally, the comparison to XP sales is flawed in a number of ways. For one, when XP sold (through its entire life cycle) MS amitorized the license sale throughout the year but this year they made a change to count the whole sale in the quarter it was sold. In the end it is not a big differance except when comparing the two in thier first month or quarter(s) as XP sales where spread out over the year while Vista dollars all lump in the beginning. Lastly, the number is further skewed by the fact that MS counted a number of PCs sold in late 2006 with XP on them as Vista sales, remember the ones with the no cost upgrade to Vista coupons and discount upgrades - those got counted, in whole or part depending on the type, as a Vista sale. In addition to all this, the PC market is far, far, far larger today than it was when XP was released so just to stay even with XP sales if all the above where not being done Vista would have to far outsell it just to be 'even' and as it stands even with the inflated figures it is just on par in raw dollars (not counting for inflation and Vista's higher price).
Originally posted by AmazingAvery
Anyway I think things will be better sooner than you think Agt Smith
Perhaps, but without a MAJOR increase in the rate of sale (and I mean MAJOR) there just isn't going to be enough DX10 gaming rigs deployed to be able to justify developers making a complete DX10 game unless they are inclined to code one game twice and sell it once - and knowing the economics of developing games I think we all know how unlikely that is. Add in the resurgent OpenGL API (Google ID Tech 5) and there is momentum to ignore DX10, or at least give it the 'window dressing' type treatment that something like Creative's xFi RAM gets or Ageia PhysX). Just like those technologies the issue isn't their capability it is their acceptance and deployment amongst gamers - neither have enough of a base to get anything but minor attention just as DX10 is getting.
Oh yeah - retail XP is EOL (end of lifecycle) as of January 2008 but for us system builders it is January 2009 so it isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Additionally, I bet you will see MS extend that as they will lose tons of cash if they try to cut off their XP nose to spite their Vista face. Also, even with the retail XP set to go away in January enterprise partners can still use it and signs are that in that market Vista has zero chance of gaining a notable market share for a long time to come, if ever.
Additionally, I bet you will see MS extend that as they will lose tons of cash if they try to cut off their XP nose to spite their Vista face.
As I type, I am preparing my Mua ha ha ha ha ha. If Vista sales are that bad and opengl ( I can hope) looks to make a comeback, how likely do you think M$ will develop directX10 for XP ?
That asked. It does seems MS is under some heavy fire at the moment and some real pressure.
DX10 for XP? Hard to say really. It might be an indicator this January when XP is set to expire for the retail/OEM (not system builder) channel - an liberal extension of that deadline might signal that MS gets it, if they do not then they are clueless and plan to stick with this figuring it is good enough to get them to Windows 7 in 2k9. Allot also depends on Vista SP1 - business are not even considering Vista without that SP and it seems it will not be public until the big spring launch day around Feb of 2008 when VS 2008, Server 2008, and some others launch (at least as a paper launch). With Crysis being the best reason for Vista/DX10 it could be a double edged sword this fall - the game looks to really use DX10 in a meaningful way but Vista's un-patched performance issue are likely to mean that there will be trouble with performance in a game like Crysis, as there are with others.
So, do I think MS will allow DX10 on XP - honestly, no. It really is the only big change from XP to Vista and I don't see them letting go of that because then vista really is just a 'tweaked' XP with compatibility and performance nad interoperability issues as well. At lease DX10 gives them some future promise to hold out there. MS has been very foggy about 2008 - so anything could happen - and alot of this depends on how good Windows 7 is shaping up to be. Allot of insiders believe Windows 7 (Vienna, 2009) is the 'real' XP replacement and that Vista is out just because they had to ship something (anyone recall Millennium?).
And as far as MS being under pressure - not really. The OEMs are the ones getting screwed over this because PC sales are crap - no rush to get the great new OS and even a drag with people dreading getting it. MS is still selling XP to make up for slumping Vista. Linux is not ready to take Window's place, across the landscape and Apple is just as arrogant and proprietary as ever so no challenge from them aside from a slight surge in laptops sales. In the end it remains MS with XP verses MS with Vista - a win-win for MS until they get the real next Windows out in 2009, Windows 7.
I don't know where Smith gets his information. I cannot find anything even remotely NEW that says Vista is at 6% market penetration, that isn't dated atleast 6 months ago.
Vista is getting better, not because the OS is changing, but hardware makers are off their butts making it more compatable. And they're doing this, not because they think Vista is going to flop, but because they know it will be the next STEP forward in Windows OS.
The OS is Solid, Stable, and Secure, and includes DX10, slightly more visualy appealing ( HEY, Mac makes a living off this ONE reason) It's easier to navigate, and easier to set up.
I don't see how people can give it anything less then a NOD, unless they're trapped on a machine with 512mb's of RAM.
" VISTA HAS LOWER PROFORMANCE!!! " Guess what? So did XP!!!, So did EVERY new OS compaired to the last, but you GAIN more features, ease of use. You wan't Air conditioning? Your going to give up some horsepower. Now this may not be a big deal if you drive a Corvette, but you Focus drivers might be concerned. ----- SAME THING HERE.
If somebody asks me to build them a PC, and they're not seasoned professionals, I'd use Vista. it will make it easier to ue for them, and if they use it, then they are happy.
ok i dont know about you, but i wouldnt call Vista easier to navigate if anything i find it more difficult cause im set in my XP ways. The OS is getting better i will admit, but many of the new security function iv turned off , hence defeating the purpose but keeping my sanity. Biggest thing i hated was this run as administrator crap. Say like when playing BF 2142 it wont let me play online cause punkbuster is another program.
I duno vista is getting there, and im about to install it on my main PC soon, but on the side note, i want Omega Drivers for Vista before i install it. Vista just seems to be a 300$ service pack 3 for XP and have security functions in the end i turned off due to them being most annoying.
I don't know where Smith gets his information. I cannot find anything even remotely NEW that says Vista is at 6% market penetration, that isn't dated atleast 6 months ago. Vista is getting better, not because the OS is changing, but hardware makers are off their butts making it more compatable. And they're doing this, not because they think Vista is going to flop, but because they know it will be the next STEP forward in Windows OS. The OS is Solid, Stable, and Secure, and includes DX10, slightly more visualy appealing ( HEY, Mac makes a living off this ONE reason) It's easier to navigate, and easier to set up. I don't see how people can give it anything less then a NOD, unless they're trapped on a machine with 512mb's of RAM. " VISTA HAS LOWER PROFORMANCE!!! " Guess what? So did XP!!!, So did EVERY new OS compaired to the last, but you GAIN more features, ease of use. You wan't Air conditioning? Your going to give up some horsepower. Now this may not be a big deal if you drive a Corvette, but you Focus drivers might be concerned. ----- SAME THING HERE.
See you made the point for me. XP had lower proformance when it was released. Now that we have a SP2 it is a great OS. Why would I buy Vista untill they have a SP1+. It makes no sense to buy a product that does not run as well as my current product.
Thats like saying you are going to buy a new Car with no doors because its newer then your old working care with doors.
Look VISTA is going to be the future OS for Windows but it needs more time, alot more time, Once they fix everything that is wrong with it, it will be great, it is a decend system just not worth the money or the hassel at this time.
Vista has problems with just about everything right now. Not to mention to run a game on vista you have to have a machine that can handle both vista AND the game. Not an overly big deal if you have a really expensive gaming rig, but for some poor shlub who's just barely hanging on with his 1 GB of ram and 2.6 ghz processor it's going to tax him just a little too much. All in all a dual boot system would be the best, mainly because most every other game runs incredibly on an XP system just because of system resources alone.
One good way to look at it though is, hey, it's technology and it keeps changing, if you don't upgrade now you'll have to upgrade sometime. On the other hand, making everyone get a DX10 ready card and Vista sure is a bitch.
You can spin and twist things all you want but the statement above, what I called BS on, is clearly suggesting the key to making Vista flawless is using at least 4Gs of RAM - an impossibility as I have outlined (without going to x64 which is not a pleasant environment now for games).
I need you to explain this. I run Vista x64 right now. I have not run many games (being busy) but I have run a good slew of betas, and LORTO, EQ2, and Vanguard. They have all run near flawless on my PC. (well except vanguard and it don't run any worse than it did on XP) I even tried the recent Crysis beta to see what DX 10 looked like. (pretty flashy btw)
No problems on Vista x64.
So I need you to explain that statement.
AmazingAveryAge of Conan AdvocateMemberUncommonPosts: 7,188
Just want to add that Funcom have said AoC will be supports for 64 bit version.
You can spin and twist things all you want but the statement above, what I called BS on, is clearly suggesting the key to making Vista flawless is using at least 4Gs of RAM - an impossibility as I have outlined (without going to x64 which is not a pleasant environment now for games).
I need you to explain this. I run Vista x64 right now. I have not run many games (being busy) but I have run a good slew of betas, and LORTO, EQ2, and Vanguard. They have all run near flawless on my PC. (well except vanguard and it don't run any worse than it did on XP) I even tried the recent Crysis beta to see what DX 10 looked like. (pretty flashy btw)
No problems on Vista x64.
So I need you to explain that statement.
Easy - it is impossible to have 4G of RAM in a 32bit operating system as the max address space is 4G (2^32) and half of that is typically reserved for hardware. The poster could have been referring to x64 but the issue with x64 and performance applications are even more stark so the 'flawless' remark is clearly specious. I won't tell you that you are not having issues, but I will tell you that there is no chance in hell that a game runs in Vista (x64 or x86) as good as it does in XP - every bit of data out to date shows otherwise. perhaps you don't notice or don't mind the issues but when MS is even acknowledging them and even publicly states an expected 5% to 10% performance drop in games and other performance applications it is fair to call it a fact. And as the Crysis BETA is not out, and won't be out until next month so I don't see how you have tried it.
Originally posted by FE|Tachyon
I don't know where Smith gets his information. I cannot find anything even remotely NEW that says Vista is at 6% market penetration, that isn't dated at least 6 months ago.
I posted an interview from 9/13/2007 earlier in this thread with MS's chief technology officer saying, his words, that Vista was 6% of the Windows install base (not even the whole market). that was a recent article and since it was referring to a chunk of the smaller pie in the Windows market and not the entire PC market it seems pretty accurate to still quote it.
Originally posted by FE|Tachyon
The OS is Solid, Stable, and Secure, and includes DX10, slightly more visualy appealing ( HEY, Mac makes a living off this ONE reason) It's easier to navigate, and easier to set up.
" VISTA HAS LOWER PROFORMANCE!!! " Guess what? So did XP!!!, So did EVERY new OS compaired to the last, but you GAIN more features, ease of use. You wan't Air conditioning? Your going to give up some horsepower. Now this may not be a big deal if you drive a Corvette, but you Focus drivers might be concerned. ----- SAME THING HERE.
But it is arguably not more solid, secure, and stable than XP - so it is a regression in most ways and offers little to no improvements that are of enough importance to outweigh those regressions. Again, that is the issue - not that Vista sucks just that for its issues (and there are issues, ignoring that is foolishness) there are not enough new things of large enough value.
Win 9x to XP was a world of differance in capability - entirely new functionalities across all areas of the platform, yes it took more resources but it gave something much more back for what it took. Vista takes but gives little back - most of it's improvements are little more than subtle and superficial improvements and its issues can be dead ending. Consider a TV - Win 9x to XP was like going from a black and white CRT to a nice color LCD. XO offered generationally new technologies and capabilities. vbista does no such thing, it is just a tweaked up version of XP when you get right down to it. NOTHING in Vista is un-doable in XP. It may take a third party app in XP but even with the third party stuff you don't lose the performance and compatibility stuff you do in XP and with the cost of Vista it would probably be cheaper as well.
Everythings argueable to you Smith. You say that X64 doesn't work well, but more and more people post about their great experiences with it. I've yet to find anyone thats tried it, and didn't stick with it. Besides you??? People cry about compatability problems... 1. Thats not MS's fault. Get hardware thats been updated. Don't buy junk. Anyone that builds a PC, should look at compatability lists. Some memory doesn't work with some Motherboards. If your not willing to consider these other technical issues, you really shouldn't be posting an oppinion on things. Who spends 2 grand and doesn't check compatability lists? A fool. 2. Most of the people who say Vista isn't compatabile haven't even tried it yet, or if they had, they did befor their hardware was updated. Again, not MS's Fault. I don't understand Damning an entire OS, because of the same problems EVERY OTHER OS has when its released.
For me, Vista X64 is the IDEAL OS for AoC, if Funcom does actualy work to support it. I can't blame Vista for Funcoms Mistake. I want to take advantage of new technology, I want richer fuller graphics. A sparkley blue mass doesn't pass for water anymore. Its a matter of priority. If I was stuck with a Single Core x86, Crappy GFXcard, and 1 gig of ram, maybe I wouldn't look at Vista, but why?
A quad core with a 8800GTS 2gigs of ram can be Built for little over 1000 USD. A SOLID system that will work for Vista x64.
The question is, Why do people still make stupid choices? Because of skeptics like you. If people knew the reality of it, they wouldn't bother with XP32. Uneducated people, often look for Skeptics, and they'll find them. Look at the best hardware on newegg. You'll find reviews saying its the crappiest junk they've ever bought. You'll always find SKEPTICS!!! All it takes is 1 person not doing their research, and building a machine with 2 pieces that are KNOWN to have conficts, and all the sudden you've got a disaster.
The sad truth of the matter is, that people are ultimately like lemmings. They'll follow the masses. Those who do not, are often labled Genius, or Idiot. The only thing that separates them, is the Genius knows where hes going, and has prepaired for it, the idiot has not. When you build your next machine, ask yourself this... Is my time worth doing a little reasearch and build a machine others have made work flawlessly, and gotten great proformance, and utilized the newest technology, or take the safe road, follow the masses, because you don't need to be educated to follow in the footsteps of others.
I even tried the recent Crysis beta to see what DX 10 looked like. (pretty flashy btw)
perhaps you don't notice or don't mind the issues but when MS is even acknowledging them and even publicly states an expected 5% to 10% performance drop in games and other performance applications it is fair to call it a fact. And as the Crysis BETA is not out, and won't be out until next month so I don't see how you have tried it.
Comments
Here is an interesting ally with me on the opinion I have been pushing here, Bill Gate's replacement at MS:
APC: Vista has been criticised for having too few improvements over XP. However, having followed the betas closely and interviewed some of the Vista developers, what is evident to me is that there is an enormous amount of functionality waiting to be tapped, like the Windows Communication Framework and Windows Presentation Foundation. How long do you think it will be before the developer community hooks into Vista's Ôhidden features'?
Craig Mundie: The way I think of platforms and their evolution broadly is that they always go in cycles and the cycle has two components or two waves to it. The first wave I call the diffusion cycle and the second the exploitation cycle.
Developer communities really only function in the large in the exploitation phase and the platform has to largely be established at scale before people move to really capitalise on its intrinsic capabilities.
So the diffusion cycle is always driven by a small number of similar applications or things that have broad appeal. That tends to get the platform out there and once it's out there you can then educate people about these other benefits and they essentially move gradually from their platform model to the new platform model.
Microsoft has done that successively, over and over again, even in the evolution from DOS to Windows, then to Windows NT-based technologies and now on to Vista.
The same thing is happening between generations of phones, game machines and IPTV technology.
So Vista is in its diffusion cycle and until there is enough of it out there, you won't really see the developer community come across.
So far, we have delivered about 60 million copies. That would represent about six per cent of the global Windows install base. So it has probably got to get up another few percentage points before you will start to see a big migration of the developer community. But I think that the tools are there to support that. More tools are coming online that I think are also important, like the Silverlight technologies and of course the .Net framework, which has been broadly adopted now.
So those things come together and then you get this big shift. I don't think it will take many, many years, but I don't think it will happen in the next few weeks either.
Even MS's top technology officer is admitting what I have been saying - that for Vista to succeed it needs market penetration. 60 million copies in a year when it is offered on just about every new PC built is PITIFUL. 6% market share after nearly one full year when a good chunk of those 60 million and that 6% are enterprise sales which are summarily wiped and rolled back to XP (pretty standard fair with businesses) is atrocious. The same thing applies to DX10 and what he is saying above is what I have been saying on why DX10 is likely to not materialize in terms of the promises that it offers.
--------------------------------
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
Sorry if this was posted already
www.technospot.net/blogs/download-directx-10-for-windows-xp-from-alky-project/
Yeah, not being able to select what drives you want to defrag or see what % is complete is totally useless - I mean, who needs that?
I've disable live search, ftp, reporting, and now superfetch, change to classic int, disable aero and 5 or so other services, am now using cmd defrag - and things are working quite well, but there's nothing I've seen so far that would sway me over to installing vista on any of our 300 work pc's either now, or in the foreseeable future.
Sure, the security seems better, but there are a LOT of negatives that out weigh that - including compatability & performance concerns.
Let's hope SP1 improves things.
I can tell you SP1 fixes allot of the performance issues, allot. 3D gaming is not one of those fixes, I mean SP1 helps that a bit but it still lags behind XP noticeably. But in the end, the real problem with Vista is not what is wrong with it but the why. there just isn't enough right, enough better, to warrant the changeover. DX10 could be great but how many games will be truly DX10 given the slow turnover to Vista? And how many people will have enough rig to run Vista and tolerate the performance dropoff even if DX10 pans out?
Word is that Crysis has some rather large differences between the DX9 and DX10 variants - game centric changes like the destructible trees and such only being possible in DX10. This will provide a push to Vista/DX10 - but I think people are going to be so put off by the performance issues and it could backfire and seal Vista's fate. Of course, it is possible that Crysis works code magic and runs great on Vista - that will be the key.
--------------------------------
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
And the most important thing is that an important developer as Carmack said there aren't anything in dx10 that is not available in dx9 (more or less)
In AoC the use of Dx10 is their way to have shinny effects on the screen with less CPU usage. Anyway, the version in dx9 is limited seriously, and personally, i prefer to decide myself where is the limit for my Win XP and my dx9 graphic card.
DX 10 is coming, and you can play AOC with DX 9. Just save up till then, you got to make the transfer someday anyway.
You guys should read the new PC gamer mag (N American) where Dx10 is all layed out in games coming out such as AoC, Hellgate London, Bioshock and with like a dozen developers from different big companies (Nvidia, Intel, Capcom, Relic, HP and Microsoft etc) saying what the difference is to them. The pictures certainley show up the difference in alot of the dozen or so games listed there.
It might be hype, but some of the pictures show why in a justified way, but pictures are the game, but many of these guys say with the new drivers released lately that performance in the real word is coming along nicely.
Here is a snippet from AoC article:
"Compared to DirectX 9, DirectX 10 is able to do things much faster - usually in fewer render passes. This means that we can throw in more objects in the scene, more effects, and more advanced mapping, lighting and shader-techniques. You have more flexibility [as a developer], [and] there are fewer limitations and many more handy mechanisms for us to batch [process] a lot of the work. This all [translates into] speed gains, which, in turn, gives us the chance to either throw in more already-existing ojects and effects in the scene, or we can have a go at more advanced algorrithms and shaders to produce better visual results.
The DX10 cards are getting cheaper and cheaper so that's a good reason for upgrading. The hardware is in a good state, and the drivers are being optimized and improved all the time. Personally, I wouldn't wait long to buy."
- Pal Frogner Hansen, Project Director (AoC)
Anyway the rest is a good read, and you and see from screens like "World in Conflict" and "Hellgate London" the differences each company talks about.
With respect to AoC, between now and launch there are many games with support for both DX9 and DX10 coming out that you can kinda judge how the game might look, not to mention any media coming out between now and then.
Again, I have no doubt that DX10 offers a technically superior rendering path than does DX9 - that isn't the issue and that isn't why I am expressing concern over DX10. Microsoft has dictated that DX10 will only be allowed to work in Vista, so as such things are only as good as thier lowest common denominator the issue of DX10 success becomes, inextricably, one of Vista success.
Vista is NOT doing well - it is gaining little market penetration (in terms of hte whole Windows pie) and momentum is falling rather than increasing. What I maintain with DX10 is that it doesn't matter how good it is if nobody out there has it nobody in developer world will code for it. It is simple economics. We have seen this from every DX10/DX9 hybrid so far - the DX10 stuff is ancillary and not very much than small eye candy over the DX9 version. Furthermore, the dual path thing has shown major performance issues on the DX10 side. Further complicating the adopting of DX10 is the console market. Consoles are DX10 so any game that wants to fully take advantage of DX10 will have to be made, essentially, twice - once for DX9 PCs and consoles and once for DX10 PCs. This is not remotely viable so DX10 gets window dressing treatment resulting in the less than stellar stuff we have seen to date.
Time will tell, I am not saying Vista and DX10 will never come around. But for the foreseeable future DX10 simply doesn't have enough of a deployment base to really get the attention needed to folesh out all it offers. Crysis will be big, VERY BIG, for DX10. If it sells well and if it truly offers something in DX10 that is far above what it offers in DX9 (early reports say it does) and the gamers flock over to DX10 to get that differance then things could change by this time next year - if not then DX10 is likely as DOA as Vista seems to be.
--------------------------------
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
98% of everything I've read in relation to Dx10 in he last 2 months say that it has come around now, or about to.
I would argue the general consensus is that Vista's installation base is already there, game titles aren't. Xp will be cut off from being bundled with PC's from the end of the year anyway. Hasn't Vista sold more than XP did in its first quarter? so to compare it to the whole Windows Pie Share is a bit drastic. Anyway I think things will be better sooner than you think Agt Smith
You said a couple thing that need commenting so let me try breaking it up...
DX10 hasn't changed at all - it is not in question. The economics of developing for it (really developing for it and not just making a DX9 game have a few DX10 elements) with its small install base and the fact that any work done creating DX10 rendering paths is lost in the important console market is in question.
This couldn't be more wrong. Even MS says that Vista at this point is only at about 6% of the windows install market, the real number is quite a bit lower. And of that real number the percent that are capable of gaming is minuscule - according to the most thorough hardware survey (Valve) DX10 gaming hardware represents less than 2% of the market. Let me back up a bit, the 'real' number of Vista install verses the number MS claims. A big, big chunk of Vista sales are OEM machines sold to enterprises - which promptly wipe it and install XP because they are volume license partners who can install whatever they want. So whatever number MS touts is seriously inflated because it represents only what was on the thing when it left Dell or HP or whatever and not what is on it when in service. Additionally, the comparison to XP sales is flawed in a number of ways. For one, when XP sold (through its entire life cycle) MS amitorized the license sale throughout the year but this year they made a change to count the whole sale in the quarter it was sold. In the end it is not a big differance except when comparing the two in thier first month or quarter(s) as XP sales where spread out over the year while Vista dollars all lump in the beginning. Lastly, the number is further skewed by the fact that MS counted a number of PCs sold in late 2006 with XP on them as Vista sales, remember the ones with the no cost upgrade to Vista coupons and discount upgrades - those got counted, in whole or part depending on the type, as a Vista sale. In addition to all this, the PC market is far, far, far larger today than it was when XP was released so just to stay even with XP sales if all the above where not being done Vista would have to far outsell it just to be 'even' and as it stands even with the inflated figures it is just on par in raw dollars (not counting for inflation and Vista's higher price).
Perhaps, but without a MAJOR increase in the rate of sale (and I mean MAJOR) there just isn't going to be enough DX10 gaming rigs deployed to be able to justify developers making a complete DX10 game unless they are inclined to code one game twice and sell it once - and knowing the economics of developing games I think we all know how unlikely that is. Add in the resurgent OpenGL API (Google ID Tech 5) and there is momentum to ignore DX10, or at least give it the 'window dressing' type treatment that something like Creative's xFi RAM gets or Ageia PhysX). Just like those technologies the issue isn't their capability it is their acceptance and deployment amongst gamers - neither have enough of a base to get anything but minor attention just as DX10 is getting.
Oh yeah - retail XP is EOL (end of lifecycle) as of January 2008 but for us system builders it is January 2009 so it isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Additionally, I bet you will see MS extend that as they will lose tons of cash if they try to cut off their XP nose to spite their Vista face. Also, even with the retail XP set to go away in January enterprise partners can still use it and signs are that in that market Vista has zero chance of gaining a notable market share for a long time to come, if ever.
--------------------------------
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
That asked. It does seems MS is under some heavy fire at the moment and some real pressure.
DX10 for XP? Hard to say really. It might be an indicator this January when XP is set to expire for the retail/OEM (not system builder) channel - an liberal extension of that deadline might signal that MS gets it, if they do not then they are clueless and plan to stick with this figuring it is good enough to get them to Windows 7 in 2k9. Allot also depends on Vista SP1 - business are not even considering Vista without that SP and it seems it will not be public until the big spring launch day around Feb of 2008 when VS 2008, Server 2008, and some others launch (at least as a paper launch). With Crysis being the best reason for Vista/DX10 it could be a double edged sword this fall - the game looks to really use DX10 in a meaningful way but Vista's un-patched performance issue are likely to mean that there will be trouble with performance in a game like Crysis, as there are with others.
So, do I think MS will allow DX10 on XP - honestly, no. It really is the only big change from XP to Vista and I don't see them letting go of that because then vista really is just a 'tweaked' XP with compatibility and performance nad interoperability issues as well. At lease DX10 gives them some future promise to hold out there. MS has been very foggy about 2008 - so anything could happen - and alot of this depends on how good Windows 7 is shaping up to be. Allot of insiders believe Windows 7 (Vienna, 2009) is the 'real' XP replacement and that Vista is out just because they had to ship something (anyone recall Millennium?).
And as far as MS being under pressure - not really. The OEMs are the ones getting screwed over this because PC sales are crap - no rush to get the great new OS and even a drag with people dreading getting it. MS is still selling XP to make up for slumping Vista. Linux is not ready to take Window's place, across the landscape and Apple is just as arrogant and proprietary as ever so no challenge from them aside from a slight surge in laptops sales. In the end it remains MS with XP verses MS with Vista - a win-win for MS until they get the real next Windows out in 2009, Windows 7.
--------------------------------
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
The game will still be available in DX9, so why do you really care?
I don't know where Smith gets his information. I cannot find anything even remotely NEW that says Vista is at 6% market penetration, that isn't dated atleast 6 months ago.
Vista is getting better, not because the OS is changing, but hardware makers are off their butts making it more compatable. And they're doing this, not because they think Vista is going to flop, but because they know it will be the next STEP forward in Windows OS.
The OS is Solid, Stable, and Secure, and includes DX10, slightly more visualy appealing ( HEY, Mac makes a living off this ONE reason) It's easier to navigate, and easier to set up.
I don't see how people can give it anything less then a NOD, unless they're trapped on a machine with 512mb's of RAM.
" VISTA HAS LOWER PROFORMANCE!!! " Guess what? So did XP!!!, So did EVERY new OS compaired to the last, but you GAIN more features, ease of use. You wan't Air conditioning? Your going to give up some horsepower. Now this may not be a big deal if you drive a Corvette, but you Focus drivers might be concerned. ----- SAME THING HERE.
If somebody asks me to build them a PC, and they're not seasoned professionals, I'd use Vista. it will make it easier to ue for them, and if they use it, then they are happy.
ok i dont know about you, but i wouldnt call Vista easier to navigate if anything i find it more difficult cause im set in my XP ways. The OS is getting better i will admit, but many of the new security function iv turned off , hence defeating the purpose but keeping my sanity. Biggest thing i hated was this run as administrator crap. Say like when playing BF 2142 it wont let me play online cause punkbuster is another program.
I duno vista is getting there, and im about to install it on my main PC soon, but on the side note, i want Omega Drivers for Vista before i install it. Vista just seems to be a 300$ service pack 3 for XP and have security functions in the end i turned off due to them being most annoying.
See you made the point for me. XP had lower proformance when it was released. Now that we have a SP2 it is a great OS. Why would I buy Vista untill they have a SP1+. It makes no sense to buy a product that does not run as well as my current product.Thats like saying you are going to buy a new Car with no doors because its newer then your old working care with doors.
Look VISTA is going to be the future OS for Windows but it needs more time, alot more time, Once they fix everything that is wrong with it, it will be great, it is a decend system just not worth the money or the hassel at this time.
Sooner or Later
rule of thumb with OS's and microsoft, wait a year, i believe Vista has its first SP the end of this year.
When I build/rebuild a machine I install XP SP2
Vista just gets me too many *huhs?* to be bothered with anymore.
Vista has problems with just about everything right now. Not to mention to run a game on vista you have to have a machine that can handle both vista AND the game. Not an overly big deal if you have a really expensive gaming rig, but for some poor shlub who's just barely hanging on with his 1 GB of ram and 2.6 ghz processor it's going to tax him just a little too much. All in all a dual boot system would be the best, mainly because most every other game runs incredibly on an XP system just because of system resources alone.
One good way to look at it though is, hey, it's technology and it keeps changing, if you don't upgrade now you'll have to upgrade sometime. On the other hand, making everyone get a DX10 ready card and Vista sure is a bitch.
I need you to explain this. I run Vista x64 right now. I have not run many games (being busy) but I have run a good slew of betas, and LORTO, EQ2, and Vanguard. They have all run near flawless on my PC. (well except vanguard and it don't run any worse than it did on XP) I even tried the recent Crysis beta to see what DX 10 looked like. (pretty flashy btw)
No problems on Vista x64.
So I need you to explain that statement.
Just want to add that Funcom have said AoC will be supports for 64 bit version.
And M$ does What What!
I need you to explain this. I run Vista x64 right now. I have not run many games (being busy) but I have run a good slew of betas, and LORTO, EQ2, and Vanguard. They have all run near flawless on my PC. (well except vanguard and it don't run any worse than it did on XP) I even tried the recent Crysis beta to see what DX 10 looked like. (pretty flashy btw)
No problems on Vista x64.
So I need you to explain that statement.
Easy - it is impossible to have 4G of RAM in a 32bit operating system as the max address space is 4G (2^32) and half of that is typically reserved for hardware. The poster could have been referring to x64 but the issue with x64 and performance applications are even more stark so the 'flawless' remark is clearly specious. I won't tell you that you are not having issues, but I will tell you that there is no chance in hell that a game runs in Vista (x64 or x86) as good as it does in XP - every bit of data out to date shows otherwise. perhaps you don't notice or don't mind the issues but when MS is even acknowledging them and even publicly states an expected 5% to 10% performance drop in games and other performance applications it is fair to call it a fact. And as the Crysis BETA is not out, and won't be out until next month so I don't see how you have tried it.
I posted an interview from 9/13/2007 earlier in this thread with MS's chief technology officer saying, his words, that Vista was 6% of the Windows install base (not even the whole market). that was a recent article and since it was referring to a chunk of the smaller pie in the Windows market and not the entire PC market it seems pretty accurate to still quote it.
But it is arguably not more solid, secure, and stable than XP - so it is a regression in most ways and offers little to no improvements that are of enough importance to outweigh those regressions. Again, that is the issue - not that Vista sucks just that for its issues (and there are issues, ignoring that is foolishness) there are not enough new things of large enough value.
Win 9x to XP was a world of differance in capability - entirely new functionalities across all areas of the platform, yes it took more resources but it gave something much more back for what it took. Vista takes but gives little back - most of it's improvements are little more than subtle and superficial improvements and its issues can be dead ending. Consider a TV - Win 9x to XP was like going from a black and white CRT to a nice color LCD. XO offered generationally new technologies and capabilities. vbista does no such thing, it is just a tweaked up version of XP when you get right down to it. NOTHING in Vista is un-doable in XP. It may take a third party app in XP but even with the third party stuff you don't lose the performance and compatibility stuff you do in XP and with the cost of Vista it would probably be cheaper as well.
--------------------------------
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
Everythings argueable to you Smith. You say that X64 doesn't work well, but more and more people post about their great experiences with it. I've yet to find anyone thats tried it, and didn't stick with it. Besides you??? People cry about compatability problems... 1. Thats not MS's fault. Get hardware thats been updated. Don't buy junk. Anyone that builds a PC, should look at compatability lists. Some memory doesn't work with some Motherboards. If your not willing to consider these other technical issues, you really shouldn't be posting an oppinion on things. Who spends 2 grand and doesn't check compatability lists? A fool. 2. Most of the people who say Vista isn't compatabile haven't even tried it yet, or if they had, they did befor their hardware was updated. Again, not MS's Fault. I don't understand Damning an entire OS, because of the same problems EVERY OTHER OS has when its released.
For me, Vista X64 is the IDEAL OS for AoC, if Funcom does actualy work to support it. I can't blame Vista for Funcoms Mistake. I want to take advantage of new technology, I want richer fuller graphics. A sparkley blue mass doesn't pass for water anymore. Its a matter of priority. If I was stuck with a Single Core x86, Crappy GFXcard, and 1 gig of ram, maybe I wouldn't look at Vista, but why?
A quad core with a 8800GTS 2gigs of ram can be Built for little over 1000 USD. A SOLID system that will work for Vista x64.
The question is, Why do people still make stupid choices? Because of skeptics like you. If people knew the reality of it, they wouldn't bother with XP32. Uneducated people, often look for Skeptics, and they'll find them. Look at the best hardware on newegg. You'll find reviews saying its the crappiest junk they've ever bought. You'll always find SKEPTICS!!! All it takes is 1 person not doing their research, and building a machine with 2 pieces that are KNOWN to have conficts, and all the sudden you've got a disaster.
The sad truth of the matter is, that people are ultimately like lemmings. They'll follow the masses. Those who do not, are often labled Genius, or Idiot. The only thing that separates them, is the Genius knows where hes going, and has prepaired for it, the idiot has not. When you build your next machine, ask yourself this... Is my time worth doing a little reasearch and build a machine others have made work flawlessly, and gotten great proformance, and utilized the newest technology, or take the safe road, follow the masses, because you don't need to be educated to follow in the footsteps of others.
perhaps you don't notice or don't mind the issues but when MS is even acknowledging them and even publicly states an expected 5% to 10% performance drop in games and other performance applications it is fair to call it a fact. And as the Crysis BETA is not out, and won't be out until next month so I don't see how you have tried it.
Crysis Beta is not out?
http://www.fileplanet.com/promotions/crysis/beta/
Now I know you are just an Idiot with an AXE to grind. Just shut up..