Vista

[sillywabbit]

Ok, I'm a little clueless so forgive me for this noobishpost . With Vista coming out, everyone is worried about having a video card to run it. It sounds like it's demanding enough to justify having it's own GPU. So in theory, could you do with GPU's what other's have suggested with multicore CPU's----using one to run OS, one to run games, one to run antivirus, etc. Would it be possible to use onboard video memory/processing power to run vista, then have a separate video card to run your games?

I guess a question i should ask that may help clear up my own confusion, if a GPU is running a game, even though you can't 'see' the VISTA(or XP) screen, does it require GPU power to keep the VISTA(Or xp) image 'ready"?

 

[PCcashCow]

It can not work in tandem. GPU's like the CPU is always working in the background to handle queued tasks. Vistas' requirements are not so much the GPU, but the CPU and RAM requirements. However in the new architecture a taxed CPU and offload smaller task to an idle GPU. Atleast that what I read in last PC mag issue.

 

[3Ball]

Cow is right, but in a more direct way to answer your question when you run a game, the OS is still running in the background, but does not require or use much if any of your gpu power, not enough to make a significant difference in the game being played!

Best,

3Ball

 

[sillywabbit]

thanks, that clears things up.

 

[CompTIA_Rep]

Trix are for kids 8O

 

[apesoccer]

I'm currently running two copies of Vista on these computers:
onbd vid
3.0 w/ht
1gb ram
120gb hd
onbd snd

and

2x6800gt
3800+ X2
2gb ram
160gb raptor
audigy (no driver)

It runs fine on both...Until you turn on Aero (basically the biggest change i've seen so far...). Everything else is just a plug-in, or a slight change in a appearence to the casual eye. People will try to point out other things...but the truth is, there isn't a REAL change between xp and vista (minus aero) until dx 10 comes out (which ms isn't putting on xp). dx 10 is the only reason to go to vista as far as i'm concerned.

However...When you turn on aero, everything runs like crap. I've heard that the ati drivers are doing a little better right now though. But then i don't have one to try out, and i'm sure both sides will be equal at some point (if they aren't already). I'm using about a gb on both machines before turning on any programs. 64-bit version uses around 10gb hd space, while the 32-bit uses more like 8gb. I'm running Office 2007 as well, it's ok...it has a nice feature that makes connecting to internet email providers easier, sometimes. So long as you don't have a small isp, or one they don't support.

All in all, i'd say the biggest need (when aero is on) is a semi-powerful gpu with 256-512mb and a lot of ram. For gaming you may need 2gb+, i know there are several games out there now eating more then a gb by themselves, so with the OS eating 1gb as well...something has to give. So 4gb will be getting popular, which then of course will push 64-bit, since alot of people trying to put 4gb in will find themselves with only 3.5gb or 3gb available out of their 4gb once they get in to the OS. Dual core or dual processors are nice, but not any more necessary then they were with XP.

 

[NewbieTechGodII]

Ok, I'm a little clueless so forgive me for this noobishpost . With Vista coming out, everyone is worried about having a video card to run it. It sounds like it's demanding enough to justify having it's own GPU. So in theory, could you do with GPU's what other's have suggested with multicore CPU's----using one to run OS, one to run games, one to run antivirus, etc. Would it be possible to use onboard video memory/processing power to run vista, then have a separate video card to run your games?

I guess a question i should ask that may help clear up my own confusion, if a GPU is running a game, even though you can't 'see' the VISTA(or XP) screen, does it require GPU power to keep the VISTA(Or xp) image 'ready"?

Personally, I just cannot see the need for Vista. It is bloated and will require way too much muscle to run. No operating system should require so much power just to run! The sole purpose of the OS is to interface between hardware/software and the user- not to take up 90% of the system resources.

Plus you have to figure that with Vista, M$ is going to add-in a lot of crap to "protect" digital media.

Nope, I am going to stick with XP until M$ gets it's act together.

 

[CompTIA_Rep]

But when will Hasta La for Vista be availible? and will it be dx10 only?

 

[krazyIvan]

Vista will ship w/DirectX 10, and will have a 3D eye-candy interface that will require more Horse Power then the current 2D interface of XP. Most video cards made in the last few years should not have a problem with Vista, but systems that use OnBoard video chips might have to turn off/down the eye-candy. When you see posts about “DirectX 10 video cards” that refers to cards that will meet whatever new bells and whistles DX10 adds, exp – DX8 used SM (Shader Model) 2.0 and DX9 uses SM 3.0 that added HDR (high dynamic range) lighting support.

 

[CompTIA_Rep]

Personally, I just cannot see the need for Vista. It is bloated and will require way too much muscle to run. No operating system should require so much power just to run! The sole purpose of the OS is to interface between hardware/software and the user- not to take up 90% of the system resources.

Plus you have to figure that with Vista, M$ is going to add-in a lot of crap to "protect" digital media.

Nope, I am going to stick with XP until M$ gets it's act together.

LOL your comments are exactly what everyone said about XP when they were still using 98/2000. I think you will change your mind like all the other people who use computers.

 

[PCcashCow]

Vista will ship w/DirectX 10, and will have a 3D eye-candy interface that will require more Horse Power then the current 2D interface of XP. Most video cards made in the last few years should not have a problem with Vista, but systems that use OnBoard video chips might have to turn off/down the eye-candy. When you see posts about “DirectX 10 video cards” that refers to cards that will meet whatever new bells and whistles DX10 adds, exp – DX8 used SM (Shader Model) 2.0 and DX9 uses SM 3.0 that added HDR (high dynamic range) lighting support.

Thats great and all, but what games are going developed that will use the engine? NONE. Vista will be a nice upgrade from XP, but it just seems like large push to push the end of life on w2k sooner and put a dead end date on XP at some point too. I was really look forward to the new filing system too, I never did catch why they dumped it from Vista?

Also everyone by now knows never to pop into an new MS OS without seeing a SP rolled out first.

 

[CompTIA_Rep]

You mean to tell me crisis isnt dx10?

 

[PCcashCow]

The SDK for DX10 has been available to developers for a while now, but because of Vista's hiccups along the way, the SDKs are slow to be updated. The first DX10 games were to be ready by XMAS, but now they are looking like late Q1 or early Q2.

 

[NewbieTechGodII]

Personally, I just cannot see the need for Vista. It is bloated and will require way too much muscle to run. No operating system should require so much power just to run! The sole purpose of the OS is to interface between hardware/software and the user- not to take up 90% of the system resources.

Plus you have to figure that with Vista, M$ is going to add-in a lot of crap to "protect" digital media.

Nope, I am going to stick with XP until M$ gets it's act together.

LOL your comments are exactly what everyone said about XP when they were still using 98/2000. I think you will change your mind like all the other people who use computers.


Uhmm, not quite, young Jedi. I believe you're mistaking XP for Me in that case. I remember that period of time, when I "upgraded" from 98 RC2 to Me and what a disaster that was! Remember the old TechTV? Leo and company installed Me on all of their machines and within a couple of weeks, they were lamblasting Me and telling their viewers how shitty Me was (is).

XP, on the other hand, was seen as a true upgrade, with better everything. Techies were thrilled that the stability of NT and NTFS were being brought to home users.

XP has its flaws, but it works and works pretty damned good. Vista is just going to suck-up resources- ESPECIALLY if you go all the way to get Vista Ultimate.

I've been playing with Vista, and so far the only thing I have really liked is the ability to dynamically extend/shrink partition sizes from within Windows. Of course, I am pretty sure there are already 3rd party products that can do that already. I also like the fact that one can utilize the unused space on a thumbdrive as system RAM.

 

[CompTIA_Rep]

Actualy Younger Jedi,
I was going to include ME, but since it was a joke by microsoft and not a real OS (although some people didnt get the joke and actualy used it as one), i didnt say 98se -> Me.

Windows XP SP0 had issues. And like your complaint now, XP appeared to have just a few Visual updates over 98. The real changes of course, is in the code.

 

[kg4icg]

Currently i'm running Vista Pre-Release RC-1 with a Pentium D 820, 1 gig of pc4300, XFX6800XT vid card with 256 mb Creative X-Fi platinum on a Asus PL5D2 motherboard, and for now everything is running smooth as glass. The first beta was a hog but they smoothed it out since then.

R COllins

 

[NewbieTechGodII]

Currently i'm running Vista Pre-Release RC-1 with a Pentium D 820, 1 gig of pc4300, XFX6800XT vid card with 256 mb Creative X-Fi platinum on a Asus PL5D2 motherboard, and for now everything is running smooth as glass. The first beta was a hog but they smoothed it out since then.

R COllins

Yeah, I downloaded the new release the other day but haven't bothered installing it yet. Beta 2 was such a mess, and if you knew what system I am running, it barely runs on it.

 

[J]

Windows ME was more of an escape than a release. lol

 

[NewbieTechGodII]

Actualy Younger Jedi,
I was going to include ME, but since it was a joke by microsoft and not a real OS (although some people didnt get the joke and actualy used it as one), i didnt say 98se -> Me.

Windows XP SP0 had issues. And like your complaint now, XP appeared to have just a few Visual updates over 98. The real changes of course, is in the code.

Yeah, I wish I were young again!

I never thought that the update of 98 to XP was eye-candy at all. Yes, it had better visuals, but the engine that ran it was clearly better.

Vista's eye candy is better yet, but I don't see how the engine is that much better over XP. Besides, as I've said, the OS SHOULD NOT hog system resources like Vista does/will.

 

[infornography42]

Windows XP SP0 had issues. And like your complaint now, XP appeared to have just a few Visual updates over 98.

umm... nobody I knew would have ever even pretended to say that the changes between 98 and XP were purely cosmetic.

Now if you were to compare 2000 to XP, then yeah. 2000 was the OS of choice for me and my friends back when XP came out. 98 was used for legacy gaming more than anything else. Me was a dirty little secret that we only whispered or ranted about but never used.

If you were to compare 2000 to XP SP0 then the changes WERE largely cosmetic. XP booted faster but used more resources once loaded. Also the default user interface looked like it was designed by fisher price.

XP SP2 did make some significant changes however.

I don't think people are saying that the only changes in Vista are cosmetic however. Vista is a MAJOR CHANGE. I think what most people are saying is that they are not interested in those changes. Many of them are designed to facilitate DRM which almost always comes at the cost of the legitimate consumer.

The ONLY change in Vista that I consider worthwhile is that it fixed the problems when a large file transfer bugged out. (well that and DX10).

 

[vic20]

Whats up with the bashing on Vista? There are a ton of nice subtle changes that takes time to notice. Such as maintaining highlights on files woth multiple windows.

The eye candy finally beats the looks of MAC OS IMO.

Its exactly the same as when XP came out.

Win9X ran fine on 350MHz machines with 128MB ram with 5400rpm drives.

XP runs like trash on anything under a P3/Athlon 1GHz with 512MB and 7200rpm drives.

I'm ran Vista Beta 2 with Aero on an XP 2500+, 1gig, single old 7200rpm maxtor/quantum drive and 9800pro. It ran very well. With a decent up to date hard drive, it should fly.

 

[NewbieTechGodII]

Whats up with the bashing on Vista? There are a ton of nice subtle changes that takes time to notice. Such as maintaining highlights on files woth multiple windows.

The eye candy finally beats the looks of MAC OS IMO.

Its exactly the same as when XP came out.

Win9X ran fine on 350MHz machines with 128MB ram with 5400rpm drives.

XP runs like trash on anything under a P3/Athlon 1GHz with 512MB and 7200rpm drives.

I'm ran Vista Beta 2 with Aero on an XP 2500+, 1gig, single old 7200rpm maxtor/quantum drive and 9800pro. It ran very well. With a decent up to date hard drive, it should fly.

Once again, my system specs:

AMD Athlon Thunderbird 1.2GHZ (OC'd to 1.33)
ABIT KG7 MB
512MB PC2100 RAM (4 DIMMS available, but DIMM 3 is out!)
ATI AIW RADEON 8500DV (AGP 4x, 64MB RAM)
SoundBlaster Live! 5.1 with Live! Drive IR
Maxtor 120GB HDD (ATA 133, though the MB interface is ATA 100!)
Belkin USB 2.0 PCI Card
DLink 10/100 NIC
Lite-On DVD+RW
Antec LanBoy Case
Antec 350W PS

Vista runs like shit on it. Granted, my video card ain't really up to snuff, but oh well.

As to XP, I turn off almost all of the special effects. I mean, why the hell do I need them? I only need the OS to be secure, stable, and have a cool name. Vista is not a cool tech name.

Oh yeah, it was Fisher-Price who was described as making the GUI for something (XP or Vista?).

 

[infornography42]

Win9X ran fine on 350MHz machines with 128MB ram with 5400rpm drives.

XP runs like trash on anything under a P3/Athlon 1GHz with 512MB and 7200rpm drives.

I've run XP fine on a 700 mhz computer.
Note, XP required only a x2 or pessimistically a x3 increase in processor capability, can run on practically any video card and despite your trashy assesment it runs fine on 256 megs of ram as long as you don't intend to do any heavy gaming on it.

I'm ran Vista Beta 2 with Aero on an XP 2500+, 1gig, single old 7200rpm maxtor/quantum drive and 9800pro. It ran very well. With a decent up to date hard drive, it should fly.

And probably at least a gig of memory if not 2. notice that your processor increase was 5 times the processing power of the previous. Also note that you suddenly need at least a decent DX9 video card in order to even move in it. The MINIMUM system reccomendations from microsoft skyrocketed compared to previous Windows versions.

By the way, hard drive speed does not have that significant an effect on overall system performance unless you are really short on memory.

Vista is a hog. Plain and simple. It is also laden down with more DRM garbage than I can personally stomach. If you can accept paying that much money for an OS that consumes that much power and makes you jump through hurdles to be allowed to run it while it monitors you like big brother... go for it.

Me I'm staying the hell away for now.

 

[NewbieTechGodII]

Win9X ran fine on 350MHz machines with 128MB ram with 5400rpm drives.

XP runs like trash on anything under a P3/Athlon 1GHz with 512MB and 7200rpm drives.

I've run XP fine on a 700 mhz computer.
Note, XP required only a x2 or pessimistically a x3 increase in processor capability, can run on practically any video card and despite your trashy assesment it runs fine on 256 megs of ram as long as you don't intend to do any heavy gaming on it.

I'm ran Vista Beta 2 with Aero on an XP 2500+, 1gig, single old 7200rpm maxtor/quantum drive and 9800pro. It ran very well. With a decent up to date hard drive, it should fly.

And probably at least a gig of memory if not 2. notice that your processor increase was 5 times the processing power of the previous. Also note that you suddenly need at least a decent DX9 video card in order to even move in it. The MINIMUM system reccomendations from microsoft skyrocketed compared to previous Windows versions.

By the way, hard drive speed does not have that significant an effect on overall system performance unless you are really short on memory.

Vista is a hog. Plain and simple. It is also laden down with more DRM garbage than I can personally stomach. If you can accept paying that much money for an OS that consumes that much power and makes you jump through hurdles to be allowed to run it while it monitors you like big brother... go for it.

Me I'm staying the hell away for now.


Amen. Oh and I forgot: When I was running Beta 2, Vista would not recognize my external USB HDD! I just finished burning the iso for RC1, so we'll see if they fixed that.

 

[apesoccer]

Eh...i'd edit that post if i were you...Or delete it entirely. Anyone who reads that will never take you seriously again...or anybody who knows anything about operating systems anyway. I think you meant to specify 2000 not 98. Can you say memory management, or hell, ntfs ftw!

But on the up side...I need your car...can you send it to me plz? I'll take the oil blasting through the seals on the heads for the rx-7 rev 2-3, if you have one, too. =)