I'm running Vista and wondered why I have not switched to it sooner!
I have had no issues with any MMO I'm playing atm or with any other software ect ect.
Vista is awesome, but it does hog alot of RAM so I made sure I had at least 4 gigs of Ram..Running Flawless.
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).
Another thing to consider is this.If your video cards hav 768 MB each , your maximum memory is going to at most be 2.4 GB, because Vista has to use 1536MB of that address space to address your video memory. It’ll actually be lower than the 2.4 GB because there are other hardware resources that need address space, too. So, it never hurts to fill your computer with 4GB of RAM–you’ll definitely get the max, but you won’t be able to address it all. You probably won’t be able to address much more than 2GB, maybe less. I understand the 64 bit Vista can show you the full amount.
The video card ram will not be addressed through vista, that ram is controlled and appropirated via the gpu which will be used to buffer the video process, if you have 2 gig ram on the system and a 768 vid card you only have 2 gigs ram for the system to use. But the video ram will increase overall performance (we're talkking less then 5% in reality) because the 768megs that the system ram had to ues for video buffer will be transfered to the grpahics card to handle and thus free up more system ram
any x64 operating system will show you all the ram you have it doesn't have that 2.5 gig cap (if you have a certain mb you can take it off wiht some tweaking but that's complicated and only applies to one board)
I find the x64 vista ulimtate platform to be a great gaming platofrm that outperfroms all my expectations, lol but i'm biased wiht the hardware (QX6800 @ 2.98; 4 gig Kingston DDR2 1200 (pc29600); TT 1000W; EVGA 680i; X-fi fatal1ty; 500g raid; 30" Dell) but there are some games that are problems such as KOTOR2 and smoe other non multi-core optimized games...but with this hardware would truely be useless in a x32 bit operating system, the x64 bit operating system really takes performance to a whole new level when you have the hardware to really push it and if you don't have the hardware then stick wtih x32
I am glad x64 Vista is working for you but it is well documented to be extremely problematic at this stage. Unfortunately, we will have to wait a while longer for 64bit computing to be predominate on the desktop. Sadly, MS just announced that Windows 7 (the next windows, think 2009/10) is going to be 32bit and 64 bit so for the foreseeable future everything will iely remain 32bit. I think this is pretty stupid of MS but then they are not exactly making much sense at all of late, IMHO Vista should have been 64bit only - at least then the trouble would be worth it and there would be room to through RAM at its ineffeciences.
As for what you where saying about the RAM issue - I am not sure I follow your point. Yes, a GPU with no on board RAM will use some system RAM so having a GPU with on board RAM helps system performance but it isn't related to the discussion here about the limitations of 32bit addressing.
Damn this thread, now I am considering getting a couple of 2 gig sticks of memory and the 64 bit version just to see how it runs.
In truth - once you get over or around the setup issues (it has some real hardware issues that even prevent the DVD from booting w/o BSODs) it is pretty nice - albeit not for gaming IMHO due to the many, many hardware issues. I would say that x64 Vista (aside from the bloat that is all Vista) and the other Vista issues that come along, is what Vista should have been. Throw enough RAM at it and Windows has always straightened up nicely and x64 Vista is not bad. Games - that is another story - the hardware issues make gaming a hit or miss thing. In theory, with good drivers, it would be great - but drivers support in x64 Vista is not good compared to even 32 bit Vista. But, again, it is distinctly better performing not only from the 64bit capability but the additional RAM. Perhaps I am sounding contradictory here - I don't mean to say Vista x64 is great but at least it offers some great benifit for the great troubles, unlike Vista 32bit. Had MS shipped only a 64 bit Vista then my take on Vista would be entirely differant because, in the end, by the tiem a SP came and hardware issues got resolved and al we would have something inherintly better than what we had before. With 32bit Vista the lowest common denomitor rule kicks in allmost permanently relegating 64bit to niche purposes as most things will be made for the broader lowest common 32 bit. What that decision by MS yields is the situation we have now with a whole lot of pain in moving to Vista with little benifit - I mean at this point i think we are all just hoping that, eventually, Vista runs at least as good as XP. Had they done just 64 bit then this pain would have been temporary and we would have sat on something early next year with a substantial benifit over XP.
Sadly, we are going to be stuck with 32bit for some time longer since MS released Vista in 32 and 64 bit and have allready announced the next Windows (codename Windows 7) will also be 32 and 64 bit. How Windows is going to go through 2010+ with the 32bit memory adressing limitation is beyond me, but then much of wht is coming out of Redmond of late is beyond comprehension.
AoC = Games for Windows that automatically means Vista, which means that if you want to roll a game which is DX 10 ONLY you must meet these requirements:
A 64 bit, Dual or Quad Core processor.
A G8 series video card or better.
A minimum of 2 gigs of DDR3 RAM.
A motherboard that supports hyper threading and all sorts of new tech implements.
Well just for the record after a lot of thought and a few hours research I am going to hold off on Vista a while longer. The 64 bit version is just ok and does not offer me enough bang for the bucks I would spend in my opinion. I was really thinking more of Bioshock and Crysis as the reason for upgrade anyway.
AoC = Games for Windows that automatically means Vista, which means that if you want to roll a game which is DX 10 ONLY you must meet these requirements:
A 64 bit, Dual or Quad Core processor. WRONG!
A G8 series video card or better.
A minimum of 2 gigs of DDR3 RAM. WRONG!
A motherboard that supports hyper threading and all sorts of new tech implements. WRONG!
And the list goes on.
you do not know what youre talking about do you?
It doesn't appear he does.
2gig's of RAM is prolly the standart now, but DDR3 sure as hell isn't.
11.5 What does it mean to be a Windows Vista launch title?
This means that we are cooperating with Microsoft in the development of Age of Conan to make sure it takes advantage of all the new gaming specific features found in Windows Vista, the upcoming new operating system from Microsoft. As the first MMO game Age of Conan will also feature DX10 support, which allows us to bring an even more detailed gameworld to the players. The game can also be played in DX9.
although it is only windows vista.. people should be upgrading OS anyways... vista is not that bad at all.
vista really needed more time to be perfect for market but nah they wanted more money soo fe fucking face with bugs that i recently got i hate vista but it comes with pc so meh and does anyone no any good ram for (acer aspire t180 desktop) please send me links
11.5 What does it mean to be a Windows Vista launch title?
This means that we are cooperating with Microsoft in the development of Age of Conan to make sure it takes advantage of all the new gaming specific features found in Windows Vista, the upcoming new operating system from Microsoft. As the first MMO game Age of Conan will also feature DX10 support, which allows us to bring an even more detailed gameworld to the players. The game can also be played in DX9.
although it is only windows vista.. people should be upgrading OS anyways... vista is not that bad at all.
I've been saying that too, but there are some people seriously afraid of upgrading. If people would just start converting to 64bit OS, more support would follow, and next year 32bit would be history, but everyone crys about 64not having the right drivers, but nobody will switch.
11.5 What does it mean to be a Windows Vista launch title?
This means that we are cooperating with Microsoft in the development of Age of Conan to make sure it takes advantage of all the new gaming specific features found in Windows Vista, the upcoming new operating system from Microsoft. As the first MMO game Age of Conan will also feature DX10 support, which allows us to bring an even more detailed gameworld to the players. The game can also be played in DX9.
although it is only windows vista.. people should be upgrading OS anyways... vista is not that bad at all.
I've been saying that too, but there are some people seriously afraid of upgrading. If people would just start converting to 64bit OS, more support would follow, and next year 32bit would be history, but everyone crys about 64not having the right drivers, but nobody will switch.
I can finally agree with something you say. :-) 64bit is worth the trouble, and not surprisingly, when Vista has 4Gs of RAM to work with (it sits at the desktop using as much as 40% of 4G mind you) it is markedly better than Millinium II x86 (also known as Vista 32bit). All in all - mt recent re-deployment of x64 Vista has brought me around to the point that my best recomendation in regards to Vista is to make the jump, happily but aware you will have some issues of course, when you can go for Vista x64 and populate the rig with big sticks of RAM (4G seems the sweet spot for now). Vista 32bit is just a waste of time - it cannot address the memory needed for it to get out of the way of anything else running on it making the 'benifits' of the upgrade negligible if not negative.
p.s. Mind you, x64 has some issues with hardware - not driver shortages as MS is, thankfully, requiring submission of a 64bit driver in order to get certification of even a 32bit driver - but in terms of some small and some big issues with the drivers being unstable or otherwise less than we might hope for. xFi in 64bit Vista for example - installs great but in a number of rigs (seems mostly 4g+ rigs) the output on all channels is nasty static. NVIDIA also has major issues with vista x64 drivers (to go along with thier major Millinium II drivers issues). Namely, SATA drivers form NVIDIA for x64 Vista are piss poor - I had to completely disable all NVIDIA SATA controllers on my board and plug in an old PATA DVD drive just to get the Vista installer to start up without BSODs. Once up and going though, x64 Vista (again, with loads of RAM) is a nice improvement over the x86 variant. I will hold off commentary on gaming on x64 as it is just to early in all of Vista to really consider it 'best' for that role.
We just need somebody like DELL to say that they will ONLY make 64 bit Systems, and FORCE Hardware manufactures to start working to make this the new standard. This isn't going to happen UNLESS Samsung buys out AMD, and sticks to AMD's vison of Innovation.
AoC = Games for Windows that automatically means Vista, which means that if you want to roll a game which is DX 10 ONLY you must meet these requirements:
A 64 bit, Dual or Quad Core processor. WRONG!
A G8 series video card or better.
A minimum of 2 gigs of DDR3 RAM. WRONG!
A motherboard that supports hyper threading and all sorts of new tech implements. WRONG!
And the list goes on.
you do not know what youre talking about do you?
This is the spec for the machine there run Age of Conan at RPC event in Germany
Show-PC
Intel Core2Duo E6600 @ 2,40GHz
2GB DDR3 Ram
Nvidia 8800GTX
Windows Vista
DX10-Client
Good news its works very good @ 1600*1200 with High Settings.
We just need somebody like DELL to say that they will ONLY make 64 bit Systems, and FORCE Hardware manufactures to start working to make this the new standard. This isn't going to happen UNLESS Samsung buys out AMD, and sticks to AMD's vison of Innovation.
It will have to come from MS - but that decision has already been made when they released 32 and 64 bit Vista and determined 32 bit Vista was the default. In reality though, they are taking one good step by forcing manufacturers to submit 64 bit drivers for certification (they cannot even get 32bit certification without a 64 bit as well), the 32 bit certification is secondary. So drivers isn't the problem per se - driver quality is. As with 32 bit Vista it is just proving troublesome to get good drivers - be it lazy manufacturers or something in Vista. The issue with 64 bit will get pressed soon enough - especially if Millennium II ever gets any relevant penetration in the market (a big question mark at this point). Since Millennium II (x86) is gimped for memory (the whole practical 2 to 2.5G cap) it has no future for all the bloatware/suite software companies and their tendency to cram in more and more stuff will choke out the last few bits of headroom 32 bit has inside the next year. It will all hit the fan late next year - perhaps sooner if these DX10 games become popular as there is no way in hell ANY game is going to run well in x86 Millennium II with the limited memory space. The real pisser about all this is that the dumbasses at Redmond announced recently that Windows 7 (formerly Vienna) will ship in 32 bit and 64 bit which just makes no sense at all.
The real problem with 64 bit is tha tit requires near ground up code revision to take advantage of it. I recall in an email exchange a while back, just after AMD debuted 64 bit processors, Gabe Newell of Valve told me how it was extremely unlikely that games would go 64bit anytime soon. He said that while multi core support could be 'added in' to existing code that 64 bit support (or even optimization) was a near ground up rewrite. That was a couple years ago and so far, it has held true. I had hoped in the early stages that MS would drop 32 bit alltogether and make the leap for everyone - I am not sure why they didn't but given the lack of a positive greeting and acceptance for Vista they probably should have as it would have been the 'killer app' advantage to justify the move and its interoperability issues couldn't have made the deployment situation any worse than Millennium II's inherent lack of any advantages has. Nevertheless, the driver signing issue has worked so far in getting 64 bit drivers from manufacturers. IN fact, as I type I am downloading from Logitech a 64 bit version of the Setpoint software for my mouse - not just a driver but a full 64 bit version of the software. Alot of companies are doing the proper development; however, due to the requirement of 64 bit support (if not full 64 bit) allot of companies are very late with their drivers for either, or not doing any (see all the software that doesn't have a "patch' to work with Vista and instead requires a whole new version as example). When it is all said and done i think the 32 bit support decision will go down as a huge mistake by MS. Vista is likely to linger around for a couple years and XP will remain dominate unless DX 10 and 64 bit Vista becoem a very viable gaming platform which might get Vista some legs. As for businesses, hard to say but at this point I don't think many enterprises are going to move to Vista, especially with us only being a year or so away from MS starting to talk up the 'next' Windows, Windows 7 (Vienna) which is likely to be what vista should have been with WinFS and the other cut vista features.
On Samsung - if they do buy AMD it is going to cause a big mess in so far as it will really put Intel in trouble and I am not so sure it is a good place to be with one of the big two severely handicapped (like the NVIDIA v ATI situation). Samsungs memory position (as they say, he who controls the spice controls the uninverse) can put them in a position to put Intel underground inside 2 quarters if they where so onclined.
Well it does sound like MS is slowly working twards 64 bit processing, it doesn't seem like they are rushing it. Hopefuly WIndows7 will be 64 by default and 32 bit if you send away from the Disc's, sort of like they did with Vista only the opposite being true.
"The fact that DirectX 10 is causing all the video cards in this evaluation to lose performance, when no major image quality enhancements are being made, is quite disappointing. DirectX 10, along with the ability to allow better shader effects, is supposed to be more efficient than DirectX 9. You would think DX10 performance would be slightly faster, but all the video cards tested here were slower in DX10 mode at the exact same settings, some more than others."
I really think Vista, and DX 10, is in trouble - perhaps some day it will deliver but more and more it is seeming to be pie in the sky. Whether it is Vista issues or DX 10 itself it is likely to be at least well into next year before it catches up to XP (if it does) and by then it will be too late to garner enough adoption for developers to really create titles for. I just did my own test last night, same rig with XP SP2 and Vista x64 installed. the only differance between the two is in Vista x64 all 4G of my RAM is used. But even with the extra RAM from Vista I get a 3Dmark '06 score that is 1300 points lower than in XP. Vista/DX 10 is simply a performance dog and so far - not a single DX 10 title has delivered graphics that are at all noticeably better (lost Planet above which is no retail, or any of the many previews and such that are available).
"The fact that DirectX 10 is causing all the video cards in this evaluation to lose performance, when no major image quality enhancements are being made, is quite disappointing. DirectX 10, along with the ability to allow better shader effects, is supposed to be more efficient than DirectX 9. You would think DX10 performance would be slightly faster, but all the video cards tested here were slower in DX10 mode at the exact same settings, some more than others." I really think Vista, and DX 10, is in trouble - perhaps some day it will deliver but more and more it is seeming to be pie in the sky. Whether it is Vista issues or DX 10 itself it is likely to be at least well into next year before it catches up to XP (if it does) and by then it will be too late to garner enough adoption for developers to really create titles for. I just did my own test last night, same rig with XP SP2 and Vista x64 installed. the only differance between the two is in Vista x64 all 4G of my RAM is used. But even with the extra RAM from Vista I get a 3Dmark '06 score that is 1300 points lower than in XP. Vista/DX 10 is simply a performance dog and so far - not a single DX 10 title has delivered graphics that are at all noticeably better (lost Planet above which is no retail, or any of the many previews and such that are available). Let's face it, the emporer has no clothes.
I'm really surprised by all of this too. The gaming community isn't dumb, people have caught on quick that DX10 really isn't worth it, and that it isn't the jump like DX8 to DX9 was. Not only do people have to fork out a fortune right now to get mediocre performance in DX10, but it doesn't even look that much different!
Top onto that the price of Vista, the cost of upgrades to make Vista gaming performance in the latest upcoming DX10 games GOOD, and you're kinda looking at a waste of money. I was really thinking about splurging some cash for 8 gigs of DDR, a quad-core, and one of the new nvidia G92's as soon as they come out, but now that I think about it and having looked at all of the DX9 and DX10 comparison photos, I'm thinking why bother. It doesn't really look that different.
More of others echoing what I have been saying, this time it is the top guy at Epic (hard to argue with him):
"If you're making something to exploit the power of DirectX 10 today, there's very few people who can run it. It's not commercially viable to go nuts with DX 10 today.
I don't think that's going to be the case for a couple of years actually. I doubt that in the next two years we'll make a game that won't run on the great DX9 hardware - the good DX9 hardware, not the crappy stuff. "
He points out another factor, multi platform development, as the real limiting factor. With teh xBox 360 and PS3 being, essentially, DX9 machines nobody is really going to go all out DX10 and isolate that market. Less development means less chance to reach that 'potential promise' and lots of games like the one review before with a couple little extras in DX10 but, essentially, DX9.
" So if you build the game that's really super amazing high end game, how do you make all the money you could make from that game because it'll be too high end eventually to be on PS3 or Xbox 360. 'Cos you could always build that next PC. And the Xbox 360 and PS3 are DirectX 9 class graphics cards.
I think people will dabble in DirectX 10 and a couple of PC-only games, or games that their big market is PC, will push the envelope a bit. But I don't see people going way, way over what these consoles can do because then they can't sell the game... they have to dumb the games down for the consoles. "
More and more it is becoming obvious to me that DX10 is really just a paper tiger. i tmay be a great API, and far better than DX9, but to many things are working against its widespread deployment and without that large install base it has little chance to ever shine. We shall see what AoC and Cyrysis do for DX10 - if they make the splash it seems they might then perhaps things in DX10 will get some momentum, if not then DX10 (and Vista) mind as well be dead and buried.
Comments
riginally posted by windsoul44
I'm running Vista and wondered why I have not switched to it sooner!I have had no issues with any MMO I'm playing atm or with any other software ect ect.
Vista is awesome, but it does hog alot of RAM so I made sure I had at least 4 gigs of Ram..Running Flawless.
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).
--------------------------------
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
any x64 operating system will show you all the ram you have it doesn't have that 2.5 gig cap (if you have a certain mb you can take it off wiht some tweaking but that's complicated and only applies to one board)
I find the x64 vista ulimtate platform to be a great gaming platofrm that outperfroms all my expectations, lol but i'm biased wiht the hardware (QX6800 @ 2.98; 4 gig Kingston DDR2 1200 (pc29600); TT 1000W; EVGA 680i; X-fi fatal1ty; 500g raid; 30" Dell) but there are some games that are problems such as KOTOR2 and smoe other non multi-core optimized games...but with this hardware would truely be useless in a x32 bit operating system, the x64 bit operating system really takes performance to a whole new level when you have the hardware to really push it and if you don't have the hardware then stick wtih x32
I am glad x64 Vista is working for you but it is well documented to be extremely problematic at this stage. Unfortunately, we will have to wait a while longer for 64bit computing to be predominate on the desktop. Sadly, MS just announced that Windows 7 (the next windows, think 2009/10) is going to be 32bit and 64 bit so for the foreseeable future everything will iely remain 32bit. I think this is pretty stupid of MS but then they are not exactly making much sense at all of late, IMHO Vista should have been 64bit only - at least then the trouble would be worth it and there would be room to through RAM at its ineffeciences.
As for what you where saying about the RAM issue - I am not sure I follow your point. Yes, a GPU with no on board RAM will use some system RAM so having a GPU with on board RAM helps system performance but it isn't related to the discussion here about the limitations of 32bit addressing.
--------------------------------
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
Besides the fact that the thread title makes no english sense what so ever, the initial post is complete bull.
Damn this thread, now I am considering getting a couple of 2 gig sticks of memory and the 64 bit version just to see how it runs.
I miss DAoC
In truth - once you get over or around the setup issues (it has some real hardware issues that even prevent the DVD from booting w/o BSODs) it is pretty nice - albeit not for gaming IMHO due to the many, many hardware issues. I would say that x64 Vista (aside from the bloat that is all Vista) and the other Vista issues that come along, is what Vista should have been. Throw enough RAM at it and Windows has always straightened up nicely and x64 Vista is not bad. Games - that is another story - the hardware issues make gaming a hit or miss thing. In theory, with good drivers, it would be great - but drivers support in x64 Vista is not good compared to even 32 bit Vista. But, again, it is distinctly better performing not only from the 64bit capability but the additional RAM. Perhaps I am sounding contradictory here - I don't mean to say Vista x64 is great but at least it offers some great benifit for the great troubles, unlike Vista 32bit. Had MS shipped only a 64 bit Vista then my take on Vista would be entirely differant because, in the end, by the tiem a SP came and hardware issues got resolved and al we would have something inherintly better than what we had before. With 32bit Vista the lowest common denomitor rule kicks in allmost permanently relegating 64bit to niche purposes as most things will be made for the broader lowest common 32 bit. What that decision by MS yields is the situation we have now with a whole lot of pain in moving to Vista with little benifit - I mean at this point i think we are all just hoping that, eventually, Vista runs at least as good as XP. Had they done just 64 bit then this pain would have been temporary and we would have sat on something early next year with a substantial benifit over XP.
Sadly, we are going to be stuck with 32bit for some time longer since MS released Vista in 32 and 64 bit and have allready announced the next Windows (codename Windows 7) will also be 32 and 64 bit. How Windows is going to go through 2010+ with the 32bit memory adressing limitation is beyond me, but then much of wht is coming out of Redmond of late is beyond comprehension.
--------------------------------
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
AoC = Games for Windows that automatically means Vista, which means that if you want to roll a game which is DX 10 ONLY you must meet these requirements:
A 64 bit, Dual or Quad Core processor.
A G8 series video card or better.
A minimum of 2 gigs of DDR3 RAM.
A motherboard that supports hyper threading and all sorts of new tech implements.
And the list goes on.
Well just for the record after a lot of thought and a few hours research I am going to hold off on Vista a while longer. The 64 bit version is just ok and does not offer me enough bang for the bucks I would spend in my opinion. I was really thinking more of Bioshock and Crysis as the reason for upgrade anyway.
I miss DAoC
you do not know what youre talking about do you?
It doesn't appear he does.
2gig's of RAM is prolly the standart now, but DDR3 sure as hell isn't.
in response to the title. no...no it wont. DX10 and vista will dominate in the next year or so and you can still play AoC without it.
MMO wish list:
-Changeable worlds
-Solid non level based game
-Sharks with lasers attached to their heads
If you all want to know if your Rig can run AoC and how well
try this
www.systemrequirementslab.com
And NO! it's not DX10 only!
From the FAQs on the age of conan website....
11.5 What does it mean to be a Windows Vista launch title?
This means that we are cooperating with Microsoft in the development of Age of Conan to make sure it takes advantage of all the new gaming specific features found in Windows Vista, the upcoming new operating system from Microsoft. As the first MMO game Age of Conan will also feature DX10 support, which allows us to bring an even more detailed gameworld to the players. The game can also be played in DX9.
although it is only windows vista.. people should be upgrading OS anyways... vista is not that bad at all.
Whew, the OP had me going there for a sec. I am hoping to skip Vista altogether and ride XP out as long as possible.
vista really needed more time to be perfect for market but nah they wanted more money soo fe fucking face with bugs that i recently got i hate vista but it comes with pc so meh and does anyone no any good ram for (acer aspire t180 desktop) please send me links
need 4 g ram
I've been saying that too, but there are some people seriously afraid of upgrading. If people would just start converting to 64bit OS, more support would follow, and next year 32bit would be history, but everyone crys about 64not having the right drivers, but nobody will switch.
I've been saying that too, but there are some people seriously afraid of upgrading. If people would just start converting to 64bit OS, more support would follow, and next year 32bit would be history, but everyone crys about 64not having the right drivers, but nobody will switch.
I can finally agree with something you say. :-) 64bit is worth the trouble, and not surprisingly, when Vista has 4Gs of RAM to work with (it sits at the desktop using as much as 40% of 4G mind you) it is markedly better than Millinium II x86 (also known as Vista 32bit). All in all - mt recent re-deployment of x64 Vista has brought me around to the point that my best recomendation in regards to Vista is to make the jump, happily but aware you will have some issues of course, when you can go for Vista x64 and populate the rig with big sticks of RAM (4G seems the sweet spot for now). Vista 32bit is just a waste of time - it cannot address the memory needed for it to get out of the way of anything else running on it making the 'benifits' of the upgrade negligible if not negative.
p.s. Mind you, x64 has some issues with hardware - not driver shortages as MS is, thankfully, requiring submission of a 64bit driver in order to get certification of even a 32bit driver - but in terms of some small and some big issues with the drivers being unstable or otherwise less than we might hope for. xFi in 64bit Vista for example - installs great but in a number of rigs (seems mostly 4g+ rigs) the output on all channels is nasty static. NVIDIA also has major issues with vista x64 drivers (to go along with thier major Millinium II drivers issues). Namely, SATA drivers form NVIDIA for x64 Vista are piss poor - I had to completely disable all NVIDIA SATA controllers on my board and plug in an old PATA DVD drive just to get the Vista installer to start up without BSODs. Once up and going though, x64 Vista (again, with loads of RAM) is a nice improvement over the x86 variant. I will hold off commentary on gaming on x64 as it is just to early in all of Vista to really consider it 'best' for that role.
--------------------------------
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
Going to keep it simple:
Vista = DX10
XP = DX 9
AoC = DX9 OR DX10
Math Am Eazee
P.S.
We just need somebody like DELL to say that they will ONLY make 64 bit Systems, and FORCE Hardware manufactures to start working to make this the new standard. This isn't going to happen UNLESS Samsung buys out AMD, and sticks to AMD's vison of Innovation.
you do not know what youre talking about do you?
This is the spec for the machine there run Age of Conan at RPC event in Germany
Show-PC
Intel Core2Duo E6600 @ 2,40GHz
2GB DDR3 Ram
Nvidia 8800GTX
Windows Vista
DX10-Client
Good news its works very good @ 1600*1200 with High Settings.
It will have to come from MS - but that decision has already been made when they released 32 and 64 bit Vista and determined 32 bit Vista was the default. In reality though, they are taking one good step by forcing manufacturers to submit 64 bit drivers for certification (they cannot even get 32bit certification without a 64 bit as well), the 32 bit certification is secondary. So drivers isn't the problem per se - driver quality is. As with 32 bit Vista it is just proving troublesome to get good drivers - be it lazy manufacturers or something in Vista. The issue with 64 bit will get pressed soon enough - especially if Millennium II ever gets any relevant penetration in the market (a big question mark at this point). Since Millennium II (x86) is gimped for memory (the whole practical 2 to 2.5G cap) it has no future for all the bloatware/suite software companies and their tendency to cram in more and more stuff will choke out the last few bits of headroom 32 bit has inside the next year. It will all hit the fan late next year - perhaps sooner if these DX10 games become popular as there is no way in hell ANY game is going to run well in x86 Millennium II with the limited memory space. The real pisser about all this is that the dumbasses at Redmond announced recently that Windows 7 (formerly Vienna) will ship in 32 bit and 64 bit which just makes no sense at all.
The real problem with 64 bit is tha tit requires near ground up code revision to take advantage of it. I recall in an email exchange a while back, just after AMD debuted 64 bit processors, Gabe Newell of Valve told me how it was extremely unlikely that games would go 64bit anytime soon. He said that while multi core support could be 'added in' to existing code that 64 bit support (or even optimization) was a near ground up rewrite. That was a couple years ago and so far, it has held true. I had hoped in the early stages that MS would drop 32 bit alltogether and make the leap for everyone - I am not sure why they didn't but given the lack of a positive greeting and acceptance for Vista they probably should have as it would have been the 'killer app' advantage to justify the move and its interoperability issues couldn't have made the deployment situation any worse than Millennium II's inherent lack of any advantages has. Nevertheless, the driver signing issue has worked so far in getting 64 bit drivers from manufacturers. IN fact, as I type I am downloading from Logitech a 64 bit version of the Setpoint software for my mouse - not just a driver but a full 64 bit version of the software. Alot of companies are doing the proper development; however, due to the requirement of 64 bit support (if not full 64 bit) allot of companies are very late with their drivers for either, or not doing any (see all the software that doesn't have a "patch' to work with Vista and instead requires a whole new version as example). When it is all said and done i think the 32 bit support decision will go down as a huge mistake by MS. Vista is likely to linger around for a couple years and XP will remain dominate unless DX 10 and 64 bit Vista becoem a very viable gaming platform which might get Vista some legs. As for businesses, hard to say but at this point I don't think many enterprises are going to move to Vista, especially with us only being a year or so away from MS starting to talk up the 'next' Windows, Windows 7 (Vienna) which is likely to be what vista should have been with WinFS and the other cut vista features.
On Samsung - if they do buy AMD it is going to cause a big mess in so far as it will really put Intel in trouble and I am not so sure it is a good place to be with one of the big two severely handicapped (like the NVIDIA v ATI situation). Samsungs memory position (as they say, he who controls the spice controls the uninverse) can put them in a position to put Intel underground inside 2 quarters if they where so onclined.
--------------------------------
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
Well it does sound like MS is slowly working twards 64 bit processing, it doesn't seem like they are rushing it. Hopefuly WIndows7 will be 64 by default and 32 bit if you send away from the Disc's, sort of like they did with Vista only the opposite being true.
Just to backup what I was saying earlier about DX 10, check this out:
HardOCP on Lost Planet (DX 10 game)
"The fact that DirectX 10 is causing all the video cards in this evaluation to lose performance, when no major image quality enhancements are being made, is quite disappointing. DirectX 10, along with the ability to allow better shader effects, is supposed to be more efficient than DirectX 9. You would think DX10 performance would be slightly faster, but all the video cards tested here were slower in DX10 mode at the exact same settings, some more than others."
I really think Vista, and DX 10, is in trouble - perhaps some day it will deliver but more and more it is seeming to be pie in the sky. Whether it is Vista issues or DX 10 itself it is likely to be at least well into next year before it catches up to XP (if it does) and by then it will be too late to garner enough adoption for developers to really create titles for. I just did my own test last night, same rig with XP SP2 and Vista x64 installed. the only differance between the two is in Vista x64 all 4G of my RAM is used. But even with the extra RAM from Vista I get a 3Dmark '06 score that is 1300 points lower than in XP. Vista/DX 10 is simply a performance dog and so far - not a single DX 10 title has delivered graphics that are at all noticeably better (lost Planet above which is no retail, or any of the many previews and such that are available).
Let's face it, the emporer has no clothes.
--------------------------------
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 really surprised by all of this too. The gaming community isn't dumb, people have caught on quick that DX10 really isn't worth it, and that it isn't the jump like DX8 to DX9 was. Not only do people have to fork out a fortune right now to get mediocre performance in DX10, but it doesn't even look that much different!
Top onto that the price of Vista, the cost of upgrades to make Vista gaming performance in the latest upcoming DX10 games GOOD, and you're kinda looking at a waste of money. I was really thinking about splurging some cash for 8 gigs of DDR, a quad-core, and one of the new nvidia G92's as soon as they come out, but now that I think about it and having looked at all of the DX9 and DX10 comparison photos, I'm thinking why bother. It doesn't really look that different.
More of others echoing what I have been saying, this time it is the top guy at Epic (hard to argue with him):
"If you're making something to exploit the power of DirectX 10 today, there's very few people who can run it. It's not commercially viable to go nuts with DX 10 today.
I don't think that's going to be the case for a couple of years actually. I doubt that in the next two years we'll make a game that won't run on the great DX9 hardware - the good DX9 hardware, not the crappy stuff. "
He points out another factor, multi platform development, as the real limiting factor. With teh xBox 360 and PS3 being, essentially, DX9 machines nobody is really going to go all out DX10 and isolate that market. Less development means less chance to reach that 'potential promise' and lots of games like the one review before with a couple little extras in DX10 but, essentially, DX9.
" So if you build the game that's really super amazing high end game, how do you make all the money you could make from that game because it'll be too high end eventually to be on PS3 or Xbox 360. 'Cos you could always build that next PC. And the Xbox 360 and PS3 are DirectX 9 class graphics cards.
I think people will dabble in DirectX 10 and a couple of PC-only games, or games that their big market is PC, will push the envelope a bit. But I don't see people going way, way over what these consoles can do because then they can't sell the game... they have to dumb the games down for the consoles. "
More and more it is becoming obvious to me that DX10 is really just a paper tiger. i tmay be a great API, and far better than DX9, but to many things are working against its widespread deployment and without that large install base it has little chance to ever shine. We shall see what AoC and Cyrysis do for DX10 - if they make the splash it seems they might then perhaps things in DX10 will get some momentum, if not then DX10 (and Vista) mind as well be dead and buried.
--------------------------------
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