AgtSmith. Your misunderstanding me (as usual) My point is, When PC's are Quad or Oct Core, running DDR3 with bus speeds of 1600+mhz the speed gained by XP over Vista becomes what we call TRIVAL. Sure it may be a few percent faster +/- 3-4%. People will give up those few percentage points to have the much easier interconnectivity of their new products that is made so easy with Vista. With Vista sharing a Printer over a network, NOT a network printer, just sharing 1 pc's printer over the wireless network, takes 2 minutes to do. Vista is easier, and has a lot of features that everyday users want. It may not replace XP in the buisness place, for a long time if ever. How long did it take people to get off Windows 2kPro? I didn' t leave W2kPro for prolly 2 years to get XP. At some point proformance takes a back seat to Luxuary. Not everyone needs to flex their benchmark scores in front of each other specialy when they wouldn't notice the proformance gain UNLESS they had a benchmark to tell them it was faster.
Excuse me Tachyon but I happen to hold a PhD in Robotics and Computational Intelligence please don't spout rubbish that you read online from random websites as fact if all you're going to do is just read them back without any understanding and then get yourself all worked up over it.
I asked you "In what way is it more secure?" I didn't say it wasn't, I said I could crack a hole in Vista and you didn't give me an answer you spouted bad grammar at me. I asked because I knew the reply I'd get, you spouted 2nd hand information at me. Microsoft has only just managed to make a operation system hold up in security to the 7 year old operation system you used as an example. That same operating system also gets a major update this year.
The original reason why DX10 was Vista only was virtualized video memory, this all went very wrong and MS had to back peddle, and made the main reason DX10 couldn't be run on XP and option. The move from DX8 to DX9 was massive because of precision arithmetic and program shaders, the move from DX9 to DX10 is mostly simple individual improvements such as DX9 being processor limited off the top of my head. Yes DX10 games look very nice but waving pictures at me does nothing when I understand the reasons that DX10 looks better than DX9 thanks Tachyon, the facts over DX10 fall short of the MS hype over DX10. DX9 could do a LOT of these fancy effects that you talk about, such as photo-like water but it would do them a much slower FPS. DX10 offers performance improvements and THAT is the difference. It doesn't do anything extra that DX9 couldn't do, it just does it with a better FPS.
*EDIT* There was zero reason to be hostile simply because I don't agree with you.
I disagree saying the performance issue is trivial. Same for same, whether today's DDR2 or tomorrow's DDR3 XP has a significant performance advantage over Vista. perhaps that is the nature of software advances but the key to it all is getting something incredibly needed and great to make up for that performance drop. Vista comes with the performance drop, with interoperability issues, and with bugs and flakiness as its downsides and while it has upsides those upsides are of the minor improvement type and do not on balance make up for the shortcomings. Will SP1 sort this out - perhaps. but will it sort it out soon enough to make Vista relevant enough to get game developers making real DX10 goodies for us, I doubt it.
Yes, I theory and in practice Vista is more secure - but the gain is of minor real world benefit. As an IT professional and one with a ISS Information Systems Security) degree and certifications I can tell you that XP SP2 is pretty bulletproof with even modest administration. Is it perfect, no. Is in impenetrable, of course not. But is it quite easy to lock down sufficiently for the role it fills, yes. Vista's improvements in security really only help the idiots out there who are completely defenseless and clueless and while that is not an unimportant improvement it is a high price for the bigs, performance flakes, loss of interoperability, and the steep hardware/resource consumption when in the end Vista really just doesn't do anything that XP cannot do better (with the exception of DX10 which as I have pointed out is unlikely to ever be realized due to vistas low deployment and the fact that PCs cannot go far past consoles anyways).
Originally posted by DownMonkey
The original reason why DX10 was Vista only was virtualized video memory, this all went very wrong and MS had to back peddle, and made the main reason DX10 couldn't be run on XP and option. The move from DX8 to DX9 was massive because of precision arithmetic and program shaders, the move from DX9 to DX10 is mostly simple individual improvements such as DX9 being processor limited off the top of my head. Yes DX10 games look very nice but waving pictures at me does nothing when I understand the reasons that DX10 looks better than DX9 thanks Tachyon, the facts over DX10 fall short of the MS hype over DX10. DX9 could do a LOT of these fancy effects that you talk about, such as photo-like water but it would do them a much slower FPS. DX10 offers performance improvements and THAT is the difference. It doesn't do anything extra that DX9 couldn't do, it just does it with a better FPS.
This is very true - I pointed out the video memory vitualization earlier - that was a big beinifit of DX10 that got lost because the s-for-brains at NVIDIA couldn't get it working right. I started going South on DX10 at that point. I see you are a Linux guy (I dabble with x64 Ubunutu using it to run a 6 virtual machine lab as well as having tried it as a MythTV/MythWeb box although, oddly, in the end I opted for Vista Media Center as my PVR simply because it worked so seamlessly with the home network). Just like Linux (at least some distros) the real problem with Vista is not Vista itself (of course it has issues but I suspect SP1 will correct the real big ones) but the fact that XP SP2 is really just so good at the role of 'desktop' and so prevalent in the market that its flaws are outweighed by its near universal deployment.
I disagree saying the performance issue is trivial. Same for same, whether today's DDR2 or tomorrow's DDR3 XP has a significant performance advantage over Vista. perhaps that is the nature of software advances but the key to it all is getting something incredibly needed and great to make up for that performance drop. Vista comes with the performance drop, with interoperability issues, and with bugs and flakiness as its downsides and while it has upsides those upsides are of the minor improvement type and do not on balance make up for the shortcomings. Will SP1 sort this out - perhaps. but will it sort it out soon enough to make Vista relevant enough to get game developers making real DX10 goodies for us, I doubt it.
Yes, I theory and in practice Vista is more secure - but the gain is of minor real world benefit. As an IT professional and one with a ISS Information Systems Security) degree and certifications I can tell you that XP SP2 is pretty bulletproof with even modest administration. Is it perfect, no. Is in impenetrable, of course not. But is it quite easy to lock down sufficiently for the role it fills, yes. Vista's improvements in security really only help the idiots out there who are completely defenseless and clueless and while that is not an unimportant improvement it is a high price for the bigs, performance flakes, loss of interoperability, and the steep hardware/resource consumption when in the end Vista really just doesn't do anything that XP cannot do better (with the exception of DX10 which as I have pointed out is unlikely to ever be realized due to vistas low deployment and the fact that PCs cannot go far past consoles anyways).
Originally posted by DownMonkey
The original reason why DX10 was Vista only was virtualized video memory, this all went very wrong and MS had to back peddle, and made the main reason DX10 couldn't be run on XP and option. The move from DX8 to DX9 was massive because of precision arithmetic and program shaders, the move from DX9 to DX10 is mostly simple individual improvements such as DX9 being processor limited off the top of my head. Yes DX10 games look very nice but waving pictures at me does nothing when I understand the reasons that DX10 looks better than DX9 thanks Tachyon, the facts over DX10 fall short of the MS hype over DX10. DX9 could do a LOT of these fancy effects that you talk about, such as photo-like water but it would do them a much slower FPS. DX10 offers performance improvements and THAT is the difference. It doesn't do anything extra that DX9 couldn't do, it just does it with a better FPS.
This is very true - I pointed out the video memory vitualization earlier - that was a big beinifit of DX10 that got lost because the s-for-brains at NVIDIA couldn't get it working right. I started going South on DX10 at that point. I see you are a Linux guy (I dabble with x64 Ubunutu using it to run a 6 virtual machine lab as well as having tried it as a MythTV/MythWeb box although, oddly, in the end I opted for Vista Media Center as my PVR simply because it worked so seamlessly with the home network). Just like Linux (at least some distros) the real problem with Vista is not Vista itself (of course it has issues but I suspect SP1 will correct the real big ones) but the fact that XP SP2 is really just so good at the role of 'desktop' and so prevalent in the market that its flaws are outweighed by its near universal deployment.
I see no reason for anyone to switch to vista. (insert scarcasm)
I say that the proformance loss is trival that you gain from a top end machine on XP vs Vista, and you disagree. Next you say that the gain from Vista to XP is trival, and I disagree. Well atleast I'm not bashing XP, and using it on my own machines. (I've never bashed XP, its certainly a solid OS)
I have a dozen PCs here, and more that are virtual - each has a special purpose but only one is my 'desktop' and in that role, especially for gaming - Vista is abhorrent. it is unreliable, flaky, and all around unstable. As for same performance on top hardware you must be on crack. this desktop, my main rig, is about the best hardware you can get and Vista performs in games at about 25% less than XP and that is 32bit and 64 bit 9which has the full 4G of RAM avail to it). 25% is significant, and out of games the performance hits are similar with even basic file operations being miserably slow in Vista. So I have Vista Media Center on a rig that I use only as a PC - I would have installed XP media center on it but I wanted to try the Vista media center out and it is really no better or worse other than the steeper hardware requirements of Vista. Since the box is dedicated as a PVR and I had the hardware the performance hits are irrelevant as it is only used for that purpose. Linux running MythTV is really the best solution for a dedicated PVR and I will eventually roll it back out in that role.
On the issue of performance, again, you say it is my opinion and yours differs as if this is documented fact, denial=able by only someone completely ignoring reality. EVERY review site, every hardware site, every gaming site of reputation (not some paid to market crap site) shows the same performance hits and bugs and issue I have described here an elsewhere in this thread. Even MS has acknowledged these issues in knowledge base articles and is 'promising' to address them in SP1. So how is it that you are the one human on the planet who doesn't see the cold, hard reality that performance in Vista is not very good compared to XP especially in games?
What is your bias? Are you just trolling or some kind of viral marketing plant from MS? I am not saying Vista will always suck, or that it is completely without nice features - but in terms of gaming (and this is the big thing) it sucks. In terms of gaming it has already gone to long with the performance issues for developers to buy into DX10 so even if SP1 squares up the major performance issues and the performance hit does become trivial it will be too late. Any game started even this year is not going to be out until late 2009 or possibly 2010 which is beyond Vista's life-cycle (Windows 7 in 2009/2010). And with the current adoption rate anything out before that time is unlikely to get 'real' DX10 because Vista is so poorly deployed that unless a developer was doing parallel development they would go broke as hell trying to make money selling a DX10 game. So - what does this leave - it leaves gimmick DX10 games like Lost planet and a bunch of DX9 games that have DX10 features that give minor improvements if anything. Additionally, consoles are not upgrading so games cannot exceed what they can do so this mythical hardware you mention that will make the never to come 'real' DX10 titles run so fast that the 25% vista performance hit won't matter won't materialize either because developers need to sell to consoles to make money meaning they won't be designing for that hardware even if it comes. What does this leave/mean? It means that games will always run far better on XP than Vista (so long as we are still 32bit) - even with new GPUs the only difference with XP will be some minor DX 10 elements but they will be minor because of the reasons outlined previously). And same for same XP runs games faster - period.
The only reason previous DX versions succeeded without issue is because they where completely backwards compatible and each new generation of card did not have the deployment issues that Vista brings to the mix. If, for instance, someone had to buy a different version of XP to use DX9 over DX10 and that version was on as few PCs as Vista is (and the word on it was causing severe backlash about getting that version) then DX9 would have never likely been adopted and developed for. Just consider how long it took game developers to stick games on DVDs instead of CDs simply because they couldn't afford to lose a few sales due to those few gamers who didn't have a DVD drive. Add in to this mix the fact that consoles are stuck where they are now for some time and developers are really not going to go past that point, especially not for a DX version with such limited deployment as Vista has and will have. Look at the Steam hardware surveys - while Steam is one of the fastest growing distribution platforms it shows the absolute vacuum that exists in terms of the capability to run DX10. And Vista is not gaining any share with the general public and even less with gamers.
Here, then, is an interesting perspective from a high-ranking game developer, who is currently working on a highly-anticipated DX10 game, but who wished to remain nameless, for obvious reasons.
"It's funny," he whispered, "I recently had the whole "why not DX10" discussion with Nvidia and MS. But basically, if the API is not changing a lot, providing optional support for 10.1 is trivial, just a few lines of code in how you initialise the DX objects.
The larger issues of whether to go with DX10 or not are related to market share - and interestingly the rate of OS upgrade seems to be the limiting factor. There are about 4x as many gamers with a DX10 graphics card and XP out there as there are with a DX10 card and Vista, and although even with the XP users in there right now we're still only talking about 10% of the player base overall.
I believe from other readings that the DEV in question is part of the Crysis team but that is unconfirmed. So 10% of gamers have DX10 cards and Vista or XP - based off the 4x XP VS Vista referance tht means, roughly, that less than 3% of gamers have Vista and a DX10 card. Apple and Linux have better market share and why don't games get made for them? Simple - not enough deployment to warrant the development costs or even to warrant minor revisions for interoperability.
First thing, Sales will go down. Alot.... But many people will buy vista to play the game also. So if you only bought basic home edition then thats 170$ in microsofts pockets. Ok now microsoft is paying the producers of the game to make it vista only. So in the end it won't hurt anything but probably boost sales of microsoft vista. So it'll look like less sales but in the end there make it from the money microsoft will give them for being there lil slaves.
Again, AoC is NOT Vista only, that would be suicide. AoC will run in XP and Vista.
Well I just went out and got Vista ultimate!!! I cant wait to install the #1 ALL DAY EVERY DAY OS on planet Earth! My XP craped out again yesterday, and I refuse to fix it again..xp is old and ugly and I got all vista ready hardware SLI 16x supreme setup...get READY for DX 10 baby! Oh and its the signature edition too! I got Bill Gates Signed version which has some extra functional performance features added by the MAN himself!!! WOO!! WOO!!!
PAY THE MAN! its only $280 for the upgrade to Windows Vista Ultimate Signature edition! Plus I will be beating down on the x360 crowd in Cross Platform OWNAGE!!!
Originally posted by Horkathane PAY THE MAN! its only $280 for the upgrade to Windows Vista Ultimate Signature edition! Plus I will be beating down on the x360 crowd in Cross Platform OWNAGE!!!
What games are cross platform? As I understood it the only game that was going to be cross platform was Unreal for the PS3 and PC and that's not confirmed.
Again, AoC is NOT Vista only, that would be suicide. AoC will run in XP and Vista.
Well I just went out and got Vista ultimate!!! I cant wait to install the #1 ALL DAY EVERY DAY OS on planet Earth! My XP craped out again yesterday, and I refuse to fix it again..xp is old and ugly and I got all vista ready hardware SLI 16x supreme setup...get READY for DX 10 baby! Oh and its the signature edition too! I got Bill Gates Signed version which has some extra functional performance features added by the MAN himself!!! WOO!! WOO!!!
PAY THE MAN! its only $280 for the upgrade to Windows Vista Ultimate Signature edition! Plus I will be beating down on the x360 crowd in Cross Platform OWNAGE!!!
Ouch, you paid retail? You should have gotten an OEM version from somewhere like NewEgg - full version Home Premium is like $110 and Ultimate is like $189 (I get mine a bit cheaper through volume liscensing but back in the day I just got them from NewEgg). I hope you got x64 and not x86.
I will give you a tip on yoru upgrade version to save you headaches and time down the road. All Vista disks include all versions so you can install Vista on a box with an upgrade CD even if there is nothing installed on the machine. Simply run the installer as normal and when you get to the part where it asks for yoru key click on the button to enter it later, the next screen will ask you to choose the version (choose the correct one as if you don't the key won't work later on). Let the install finish and when you get ot a desktop put the upgrade CD in and run the upgrade installer this time entering yoru key when it asks and it will install again (silly but that is how it works) and you will be all done. Essentially, from any Vista CD you can install a 3 day full working version of Vista and once tht is in you can run the upgrade. This is not a hack, it is legit - MS is aware of it beign that way and has said they have no plan to change it so as long as you have previously owned a legitimate Windows liscense you can do this without violating the EULA - if you haven't properly owned Windows before, or have but sold it or gave it away or still have it in use, then this would still work but it would be a violation of the EULA. Just FYI.
Thanks allot! I am exactly in that boat. I got the upgrade and did the clean install, wow you just saved me a ton of cash because I could not register my product key and I was just about to return this copy for the full version thats $399
Thanks allot! I am exactly in that boat. I got the upgrade and did the clean install, wow you just saved me a ton of cash because I could not register my product key and I was just about to return this copy for the full version thats $399 May the karma come back to you!
Well, just to be legit you have to own a legitimate Windows liscense that you are not using and then it is fully legal and ethical. Even an old PC you don't use anymore so long as it is properly liscensed.
That being said, if you can return what you have then do so and get the OEM full install version from NewEgg - Home Premium is only like $110.
If AoC is truly going to be DX10 only that is gonna hurt this company just cause alot of people are not gonna fork out the what 300+ for vista just to play a game I personally think they should rethink that whole strategy you cant force people to just into the future "Vista" alot of companys are not even compatible with vista yet I know I had vista installed till some of my expensive software wouldnt work for it.
I personally think Vista is no improvement over XP. It takes more disk space, is a lot more graphics intensive (way too much for just the OS) and is still buggy as hell. All it does is offer more "security" features that people are simply going to turn off because they are a PitA.
Most games need to be run in "Administrator" mode which defeats the purpose of all the security improvements in the first place.
Vista is a bloated P.O.S. that offers no real benefit over XP, except that the hardware manufacturers are beginning to ignore XP with driver QA.
I am not even considering upgrading until SP2 is out and no one supports xp any more.
In this industry, first impressions are important and we don’t want to sour World in Conflict gamers on DX10 before the game is even out based on outdated info gleaned from beta code. What we will tell you about DX10 performance however is that at 1600x1200 with 0xAA/16xAF the GeForce 8800 GTX ran 19% slower under DX10 in comparison to DX9. The GeForce 8800 GTS 640 was 22% slower in DX10 while the 320MB card was 30% slower. The GeForce 8800 Ultra fared best, only losing 15% of its performance.
The margins were about the same under 4xAA/16xAF for the GeForce 8800 GTX and Ultra, but performance declined further for the GeForce 8800 GTS cards, with the 640MB GeForce 8800 GTS running 25% slower under DX10 and the 320MB a whopping 53% slower.
and...
In all honesty, it was very tough to spot differences between the DX9 and DX10 code paths during the public beta, the game looked just as great under both rendering modes. Like Company of Heroes DX10, the differences between World in Conflict DX9 and DX10 were very subtle, in fact they were more subtle than CoH. We couldn’t take identical screenshots with the beta code, but you literally have to zoom in 200% to really spot any differences. We’ve been told to expect changes to the final game that should hopefully highlight the differences a bit better in favor of DX10.
More fuel for the DX10 fire. Again, I am not sying DX10 has no potential, just that it is so far from being realized there is little to no drive to get Vista to have DX10 which, in turn, means there is less incintive for developers to do a game with DX10 as the main rendering path as with this game (meaning the game is DX9 with a few things ported to DX10 for effect at best). Seriously, here we are approaching the 1 year old mark for DX10 and we get what - subtle image improvements at performance costs of 20% to 40%? How can anyone be excited by that?
You guys don't understand that technology HAS to progess. And it WILL progess. Vista and DX10 may of come in a little bit early but its the next step in technology. why are u trying to push it away. u should be embracing something new which is going to make the new games 10x better than anything now.
You guys don't understand that technology HAS to progess. And it WILL progess. Vista and DX10 may of come in a little bit early but its the next step in technology. why are u trying to push it away. u should be embracing something new which is going to make the new games 10x better than anything now.
This isn't progress, DX9 can do everything that DX10 can do, DX10 just does it with a better FPS. As pointed out there is no reason for DX10 being Vista only anymore, it's just locking people into Vista for the sake of Microsoft making more cash and pushing their new operating system. Microsoft still claim that DX10 wouldn't work in XP, and I wonder where I've heard that before. OH yes that's right I heard it from Microsoft when they claimed that Internet Explorer and MSN couldn't be removed from XP and look what happened there.
You guys don't understand that technology HAS to progess. And it WILL progess. Vista and DX10 may of come in a little bit early but its the next step in technology. why are u trying to push it away. u should be embracing something new which is going to make the new games 10x better than anything now.
This isn't progress, DX9 can do everything that DX10 can do, DX10 just does it with a better FPS. As pointed out there is no reason for DX10 being Vista only anymore, it's just locking people into Vista for the sake of Microsoft making more cash and pushing their new operating system. Microsoft still claim that DX10 wouldn't work in XP, and I wonder where I've heard that before. OH yes that's right I heard it from Microsoft when they claimed that Internet Explorer and MSN couldn't be removed from XP and look what happened there.
DX10 certainly can do thing that DX9 cannot - the issue is really not about DX10 except that you have to have Vista to have DX10. Vista is just such a monumental slug in terms of gaming performance that any benifit to DX10 is far outweighed by its terrible performance. Additionally, since Vista is getting such slow adoption there are just not enough installs to warrant a developer going all out with DX10 in a game as they would go broke trying to find enough people to buy it. Lastly, time is the enemy - the next Windows is due in 2009/2010 so Vista really had to gain a foothold this year to avoid being a repeat of Milinium and it hasn't.
Comments
AgtSmith. Your misunderstanding me (as usual) My point is, When PC's are Quad or Oct Core, running DDR3 with bus speeds of 1600+mhz the speed gained by XP over Vista becomes what we call TRIVAL. Sure it may be a few percent faster +/- 3-4%. People will give up those few percentage points to have the much easier interconnectivity of their new products that is made so easy with Vista. With Vista sharing a Printer over a network, NOT a network printer, just sharing 1 pc's printer over the wireless network, takes 2 minutes to do. Vista is easier, and has a lot of features that everyday users want. It may not replace XP in the buisness place, for a long time if ever. How long did it take people to get off Windows 2kPro? I didn' t leave W2kPro for prolly 2 years to get XP. At some point proformance takes a back seat to Luxuary. Not everyone needs to flex their benchmark scores in front of each other specialy when they wouldn't notice the proformance gain UNLESS they had a benchmark to tell them it was faster.
Excuse me Tachyon but I happen to hold a PhD in Robotics and Computational Intelligence please don't spout rubbish that you read online from random websites as fact if all you're going to do is just read them back without any understanding and then get yourself all worked up over it.
I asked you "In what way is it more secure?" I didn't say it wasn't, I said I could crack a hole in Vista and you didn't give me an answer you spouted bad grammar at me. I asked because I knew the reply I'd get, you spouted 2nd hand information at me. Microsoft has only just managed to make a operation system hold up in security to the 7 year old operation system you used as an example. That same operating system also gets a major update this year.
The original reason why DX10 was Vista only was virtualized video memory, this all went very wrong and MS had to back peddle, and made the main reason DX10 couldn't be run on XP and option. The move from DX8 to DX9 was massive because of precision arithmetic and program shaders, the move from DX9 to DX10 is mostly simple individual improvements such as DX9 being processor limited off the top of my head. Yes DX10 games look very nice but waving pictures at me does nothing when I understand the reasons that DX10 looks better than DX9 thanks Tachyon, the facts over DX10 fall short of the MS hype over DX10. DX9 could do a LOT of these fancy effects that you talk about, such as photo-like water but it would do them a much slower FPS. DX10 offers performance improvements and THAT is the difference. It doesn't do anything extra that DX9 couldn't do, it just does it with a better FPS.
*EDIT* There was zero reason to be hostile simply because I don't agree with you.
I disagree saying the performance issue is trivial. Same for same, whether today's DDR2 or tomorrow's DDR3 XP has a significant performance advantage over Vista. perhaps that is the nature of software advances but the key to it all is getting something incredibly needed and great to make up for that performance drop. Vista comes with the performance drop, with interoperability issues, and with bugs and flakiness as its downsides and while it has upsides those upsides are of the minor improvement type and do not on balance make up for the shortcomings. Will SP1 sort this out - perhaps. but will it sort it out soon enough to make Vista relevant enough to get game developers making real DX10 goodies for us, I doubt it.
Yes, I theory and in practice Vista is more secure - but the gain is of minor real world benefit. As an IT professional and one with a ISS Information Systems Security) degree and certifications I can tell you that XP SP2 is pretty bulletproof with even modest administration. Is it perfect, no. Is in impenetrable, of course not. But is it quite easy to lock down sufficiently for the role it fills, yes. Vista's improvements in security really only help the idiots out there who are completely defenseless and clueless and while that is not an unimportant improvement it is a high price for the bigs, performance flakes, loss of interoperability, and the steep hardware/resource consumption when in the end Vista really just doesn't do anything that XP cannot do better (with the exception of DX10 which as I have pointed out is unlikely to ever be realized due to vistas low deployment and the fact that PCs cannot go far past consoles anyways).
This is very true - I pointed out the video memory vitualization earlier - that was a big beinifit of DX10 that got lost because the s-for-brains at NVIDIA couldn't get it working right. I started going South on DX10 at that point. I see you are a Linux guy (I dabble with x64 Ubunutu using it to run a 6 virtual machine lab as well as having tried it as a MythTV/MythWeb box although, oddly, in the end I opted for Vista Media Center as my PVR simply because it worked so seamlessly with the home network). Just like Linux (at least some distros) the real problem with Vista is not Vista itself (of course it has issues but I suspect SP1 will correct the real big ones) but the fact that XP SP2 is really just so good at the role of 'desktop' and so prevalent in the market that its flaws are outweighed by its near universal deployment.
--------------------------------
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
This is very true - I pointed out the video memory vitualization earlier - that was a big beinifit of DX10 that got lost because the s-for-brains at NVIDIA couldn't get it working right. I started going South on DX10 at that point. I see you are a Linux guy (I dabble with x64 Ubunutu using it to run a 6 virtual machine lab as well as having tried it as a MythTV/MythWeb box although, oddly, in the end I opted for Vista Media Center as my PVR simply because it worked so seamlessly with the home network). Just like Linux (at least some distros) the real problem with Vista is not Vista itself (of course it has issues but I suspect SP1 will correct the real big ones) but the fact that XP SP2 is really just so good at the role of 'desktop' and so prevalent in the market that its flaws are outweighed by its near universal deployment.
I see no reason for anyone to switch to vista. (insert scarcasm)
I say that the proformance loss is trival that you gain from a top end machine on XP vs Vista, and you disagree. Next you say that the gain from Vista to XP is trival, and I disagree. Well atleast I'm not bashing XP, and using it on my own machines. (I've never bashed XP, its certainly a solid OS)
I have a dozen PCs here, and more that are virtual - each has a special purpose but only one is my 'desktop' and in that role, especially for gaming - Vista is abhorrent. it is unreliable, flaky, and all around unstable. As for same performance on top hardware you must be on crack. this desktop, my main rig, is about the best hardware you can get and Vista performs in games at about 25% less than XP and that is 32bit and 64 bit 9which has the full 4G of RAM avail to it). 25% is significant, and out of games the performance hits are similar with even basic file operations being miserably slow in Vista. So I have Vista Media Center on a rig that I use only as a PC - I would have installed XP media center on it but I wanted to try the Vista media center out and it is really no better or worse other than the steeper hardware requirements of Vista. Since the box is dedicated as a PVR and I had the hardware the performance hits are irrelevant as it is only used for that purpose. Linux running MythTV is really the best solution for a dedicated PVR and I will eventually roll it back out in that role.
On the issue of performance, again, you say it is my opinion and yours differs as if this is documented fact, denial=able by only someone completely ignoring reality. EVERY review site, every hardware site, every gaming site of reputation (not some paid to market crap site) shows the same performance hits and bugs and issue I have described here an elsewhere in this thread. Even MS has acknowledged these issues in knowledge base articles and is 'promising' to address them in SP1. So how is it that you are the one human on the planet who doesn't see the cold, hard reality that performance in Vista is not very good compared to XP especially in games?
What is your bias? Are you just trolling or some kind of viral marketing plant from MS? I am not saying Vista will always suck, or that it is completely without nice features - but in terms of gaming (and this is the big thing) it sucks. In terms of gaming it has already gone to long with the performance issues for developers to buy into DX10 so even if SP1 squares up the major performance issues and the performance hit does become trivial it will be too late. Any game started even this year is not going to be out until late 2009 or possibly 2010 which is beyond Vista's life-cycle (Windows 7 in 2009/2010). And with the current adoption rate anything out before that time is unlikely to get 'real' DX10 because Vista is so poorly deployed that unless a developer was doing parallel development they would go broke as hell trying to make money selling a DX10 game. So - what does this leave - it leaves gimmick DX10 games like Lost planet and a bunch of DX9 games that have DX10 features that give minor improvements if anything. Additionally, consoles are not upgrading so games cannot exceed what they can do so this mythical hardware you mention that will make the never to come 'real' DX10 titles run so fast that the 25% vista performance hit won't matter won't materialize either because developers need to sell to consoles to make money meaning they won't be designing for that hardware even if it comes. What does this leave/mean? It means that games will always run far better on XP than Vista (so long as we are still 32bit) - even with new GPUs the only difference with XP will be some minor DX 10 elements but they will be minor because of the reasons outlined previously). And same for same XP runs games faster - period.
The only reason previous DX versions succeeded without issue is because they where completely backwards compatible and each new generation of card did not have the deployment issues that Vista brings to the mix. If, for instance, someone had to buy a different version of XP to use DX9 over DX10 and that version was on as few PCs as Vista is (and the word on it was causing severe backlash about getting that version) then DX9 would have never likely been adopted and developed for. Just consider how long it took game developers to stick games on DVDs instead of CDs simply because they couldn't afford to lose a few sales due to those few gamers who didn't have a DVD drive. Add in to this mix the fact that consoles are stuck where they are now for some time and developers are really not going to go past that point, especially not for a DX version with such limited deployment as Vista has and will have. Look at the Steam hardware surveys - while Steam is one of the fastest growing distribution platforms it shows the absolute vacuum that exists in terms of the capability to run DX10. And Vista is not gaining any share with the general public and even less with gamers.
--------------------------------
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
Consider this tidbit:
Here, then, is an interesting perspective from a high-ranking game developer, who is currently working on a highly-anticipated DX10 game, but who wished to remain nameless, for obvious reasons.
"It's funny," he whispered, "I recently had the whole "why not DX10" discussion with Nvidia and MS. But basically, if the API is not changing a lot, providing optional support for 10.1 is trivial, just a few lines of code in how you initialise the DX objects.
The larger issues of whether to go with DX10 or not are related to market share - and interestingly the rate of OS upgrade seems to be the limiting factor. There are about 4x as many gamers with a DX10 graphics card and XP out there as there are with a DX10 card and Vista, and although even with the XP users in there right now we're still only talking about 10% of the player base overall.
- the Inquirer
I believe from other readings that the DEV in question is part of the Crysis team but that is unconfirmed. So 10% of gamers have DX10 cards and Vista or XP - based off the 4x XP VS Vista referance tht means, roughly, that less than 3% of gamers have Vista and a DX10 card. Apple and Linux have better market share and why don't games get made for them? Simple - not enough deployment to warrant the development costs or even to warrant minor revisions for interoperability.
--------------------------------
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
First thing, Sales will go down. Alot.... But many people will buy vista to play the game also. So if you only bought basic home edition then thats 170$ in microsofts pockets. Ok now microsoft is paying the producers of the game to make it vista only. So in the end it won't hurt anything but probably boost sales of microsoft vista. So it'll look like less sales but in the end there make it from the money microsoft will give them for being there lil slaves.
You got no choice now baby! Vista or Bust! WOO! WOO! Get ready for some $300 PAIN!!!!!
Again, AoC is NOT Vista only, that would be suicide. AoC will run in XP and Vista.
--------------------------------
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 I just went out and got Vista ultimate!!! I cant wait to install the #1 ALL DAY EVERY DAY OS on planet Earth! My XP craped out again yesterday, and I refuse to fix it again..xp is old and ugly and I got all vista ready hardware SLI 16x supreme setup...get READY for DX 10 baby! Oh and its the signature edition too! I got Bill Gates Signed version which has some extra functional performance features added by the MAN himself!!! WOO!! WOO!!!
PAY THE MAN! its only $280 for the upgrade to Windows Vista Ultimate Signature edition! Plus I will be beating down on the x360 crowd in Cross Platform OWNAGE!!!
What games are cross platform? As I understood it the only game that was going to be cross platform was Unreal for the PS3 and PC and that's not confirmed.
Shadowrun for the 360 is cross platform.. ppl on vista and 360 can play together.
That can't be fun on the 360 without a mouse/keyboard.
Also if you check the games for windows site Marvel Univers Online MMO is coming out and Cryptic is doing the development!
http://www.gamesforwindows.com/en-US/Games/Pages/MarvelUniverseOnline.aspx
That will be cross platform WOO! Plus with Cryptic already being the Mother of Superhero MMO making its gonna be pretty ALL DAY EVERY DAY WOO!
well i play it for 360 and its actually quite fun. I play alot and find it more enjoyable than i would for computer
Well I just went out and got Vista ultimate!!! I cant wait to install the #1 ALL DAY EVERY DAY OS on planet Earth! My XP craped out again yesterday, and I refuse to fix it again..xp is old and ugly and I got all vista ready hardware SLI 16x supreme setup...get READY for DX 10 baby! Oh and its the signature edition too! I got Bill Gates Signed version which has some extra functional performance features added by the MAN himself!!! WOO!! WOO!!!
PAY THE MAN! its only $280 for the upgrade to Windows Vista Ultimate Signature edition! Plus I will be beating down on the x360 crowd in Cross Platform OWNAGE!!!
Ouch, you paid retail? You should have gotten an OEM version from somewhere like NewEgg - full version Home Premium is like $110 and Ultimate is like $189 (I get mine a bit cheaper through volume liscensing but back in the day I just got them from NewEgg). I hope you got x64 and not x86.
I will give you a tip on yoru upgrade version to save you headaches and time down the road. All Vista disks include all versions so you can install Vista on a box with an upgrade CD even if there is nothing installed on the machine. Simply run the installer as normal and when you get to the part where it asks for yoru key click on the button to enter it later, the next screen will ask you to choose the version (choose the correct one as if you don't the key won't work later on). Let the install finish and when you get ot a desktop put the upgrade CD in and run the upgrade installer this time entering yoru key when it asks and it will install again (silly but that is how it works) and you will be all done. Essentially, from any Vista CD you can install a 3 day full working version of Vista and once tht is in you can run the upgrade. This is not a hack, it is legit - MS is aware of it beign that way and has said they have no plan to change it so as long as you have previously owned a legitimate Windows liscense you can do this without violating the EULA - if you haven't properly owned Windows before, or have but sold it or gave it away or still have it in use, then this would still work but it would be a violation of the EULA. Just FYI.
--------------------------------
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
Thanks allot! I am exactly in that boat. I got the upgrade and did the clean install, wow you just saved me a ton of cash because I could not register my product key and I was just about to return this copy for the full version thats $399
May the karma come back to you!
It's going to be compatible with dx9/xp and such..as well as take advantage of vista and dx10.
Well, just to be legit you have to own a legitimate Windows liscense that you are not using and then it is fully legal and ethical. Even an old PC you don't use anymore so long as it is properly liscensed.
That being said, if you can return what you have then do so and get the OEM full install version from NewEgg - Home Premium is only like $110.
--------------------------------
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
Hey guys i made a poll to see what MMORPG will become the next wow so go and vote fo AOC
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/1576772/thread/144374#1576772
I personally think Vista is no improvement over XP. It takes more disk space, is a lot more graphics intensive (way too much for just the OS) and is still buggy as hell. All it does is offer more "security" features that people are simply going to turn off because they are a PitA.
Most games need to be run in "Administrator" mode which defeats the purpose of all the security improvements in the first place.
Vista is a bloated P.O.S. that offers no real benefit over XP, except that the hardware manufacturers are beginning to ignore XP with driver QA.
I am not even considering upgrading until SP2 is out and no one supports xp any more.
-Viz
In this industry, first impressions are important and we don’t want to sour World in Conflict gamers on DX10 before the game is even out based on outdated info gleaned from beta code. What we will tell you about DX10 performance however is that at 1600x1200 with 0xAA/16xAF the GeForce 8800 GTX ran 19% slower under DX10 in comparison to DX9. The GeForce 8800 GTS 640 was 22% slower in DX10 while the 320MB card was 30% slower. The GeForce 8800 Ultra fared best, only losing 15% of its performance.
The margins were about the same under 4xAA/16xAF for the GeForce 8800 GTX and Ultra, but performance declined further for the GeForce 8800 GTS cards, with the 640MB GeForce 8800 GTS running 25% slower under DX10 and the 320MB a whopping 53% slower.
and...
In all honesty, it was very tough to spot differences between the DX9 and DX10 code paths during the public beta, the game looked just as great under both rendering modes. Like Company of Heroes DX10, the differences between World in Conflict DX9 and DX10 were very subtle, in fact they were more subtle than CoH. We couldn’t take identical screenshots with the beta code, but you literally have to zoom in 200% to really spot any differences. We’ve been told to expect changes to the final game that should hopefully highlight the differences a bit better in favor of DX10.
- Firing Squad on World in Conflict
More fuel for the DX10 fire. Again, I am not sying DX10 has no potential, just that it is so far from being realized there is little to no drive to get Vista to have DX10 which, in turn, means there is less incintive for developers to do a game with DX10 as the main rendering path as with this game (meaning the game is DX9 with a few things ported to DX10 for effect at best). Seriously, here we are approaching the 1 year old mark for DX10 and we get what - subtle image improvements at performance costs of 20% to 40%? How can anyone be excited by that?
--------------------------------
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
You guys don't understand that technology HAS to progess. And it WILL progess. Vista and DX10 may of come in a little bit early but its the next step in technology. why are u trying to push it away. u should be embracing something new which is going to make the new games 10x better than anything now.
die
This isn't progress, DX9 can do everything that DX10 can do, DX10 just does it with a better FPS. As pointed out there is no reason for DX10 being Vista only anymore, it's just locking people into Vista for the sake of Microsoft making more cash and pushing their new operating system. Microsoft still claim that DX10 wouldn't work in XP, and I wonder where I've heard that before. OH yes that's right I heard it from Microsoft when they claimed that Internet Explorer and MSN couldn't be removed from XP and look what happened there.
This isn't progress, DX9 can do everything that DX10 can do, DX10 just does it with a better FPS. As pointed out there is no reason for DX10 being Vista only anymore, it's just locking people into Vista for the sake of Microsoft making more cash and pushing their new operating system. Microsoft still claim that DX10 wouldn't work in XP, and I wonder where I've heard that before. OH yes that's right I heard it from Microsoft when they claimed that Internet Explorer and MSN couldn't be removed from XP and look what happened there.
DX10 certainly can do thing that DX9 cannot - the issue is really not about DX10 except that you have to have Vista to have DX10. Vista is just such a monumental slug in terms of gaming performance that any benifit to DX10 is far outweighed by its terrible performance. Additionally, since Vista is getting such slow adoption there are just not enough installs to warrant a developer going all out with DX10 in a game as they would go broke trying to find enough people to buy it. Lastly, time is the enemy - the next Windows is due in 2009/2010 so Vista really had to gain a foothold this year to avoid being a repeat of Milinium and it hasn't.
--------------------------------
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