Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why do ppl insist on playing DX9 games with vista?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
February 26, 2007 6:47:19 AM

Could anyone please answer me this question? Why do people insist on playing directx9 under vista when windowsxp is so much better in this regard? Is there some problem with dual-boot that I'm am not aware of? I'm planning on getting Vista64 when directx10 titles start coming out, but am still going to keep my WinXP-32bit installation for the directx 9 titles as there are millions of benchmarks that show that xp is more consistent than vista on dx9, so why people keep posting about vista problems beats me. Anybody care to answer?
February 26, 2007 8:19:38 AM

Well, you're right that performance of DX9 games is often better under XP. This is due to two major factors, the first being that Vista is more resource hungry than XP, the other is that Vista drivers are not entirely mature yet. Some of the new ATI drivers for Vista actually show a performance GAIN of about 5% running certain applications. But for the most part performance is lower.

So why do people insist on running games under vista? Some people love to be early adopters. And lets face it, going from 180fps to 165fps in Fear probably isn't all too noticible. Why do some people run out and grab the latest GPU when there's only beta drivers for it? Because a segment of the market loves to feel that they are on the cutting edge, ahead of the pack, whatever you want to call it. Also, more and more people are buying new computers that have had Vista preloaded, thus XP was never really an option.

Vista may be far from perfect, but it's definately not the biggest turn MS has ever pinched off onto consumers. That would be 98. In less than a year it will be at least as good as XP for most applications.

Oh, and yea, lot of people have experienced problems loading Vista dual-boot. Do some research before you attempt it to save yourself headaches.
February 26, 2007 8:30:24 AM

First of all these people you mention are not that many.
Secondly, they are the so-called early adopters. Have you heard of the term? Let me tell you one big, no HUGE, benefit of early adopters: they smooth out the first bumpy steps for the rest of us.
If you want to eventually be able to play DX10 games on Vista64 I assume you want as few problems as possible. Well, that's where they come in, by having gone through all the immaturities of the OS, all the bugs, all the performance issues, so that you won't have to.
Also, having been an early adopter myself in the past (with WinXP) I must admit that the excitement of working with something new, as well as the promise/hope that things would actually improve over Win98 was enough to make me overlook the first few bumps in the road
Related resources
February 26, 2007 10:03:22 AM

well, i like to experiment as much as the next guy, but I like to draw the line between playing (relaxing) and experimenting (trying to solve brain-wracking problems). From the questions that sometimes arise around here I get the impression that more ppl are installing vista out of ignorance (not stupidity) than out of a desire to experiment.

Also, can you please tell me what problems might arise with a Vista dual-boot? I was planning to buy a new hard drive and keep that for vista and it's associated software in it, physically at least it was going to be separate from my xp installation. Any programs which I was planning to run on both OSes I was going to install twice, one on each hard drive for each OS, so as to keep conflicts to a minimum. Do you see any problem with my reasoning?

P.S. I apologise if my posts sounded condescending or anything, it wasn't my intention. :oops: 
February 26, 2007 10:37:49 AM

if you're buying a future-proof system, and you BUY your copy of windows, then you probably bought Vista. Then your only choice IS to play your games on Vista. I still play, for old times sake, old DOS4GW games under XP...And some DX5 games too (Daytona, Nuclear Strike, etc...). So i don't see why i'm gonna buy a license for DOS 6.12 (if u can find it somewhere) or Windows 98 in order to play my old game...
February 26, 2007 11:20:49 AM

Quote:
Could anyone please answer me this question? Why do people insist on playing directx9 under vista when windowsxp is so much better in this regard? Is there some problem with dual-boot that I'm am not aware of? I'm planning on getting Vista64 when directx10 titles start coming out, but am still going to keep my WinXP-32bit installation for the directx 9 titles as there are millions of benchmarks that show that xp is more consistent than vista on dx9, so why people keep posting about vista problems beats me. Anybody care to answer?


Because benchmarks aren't everything. XP used to be as bad for gaming as Vista is (which really isn't all that bad) but now look, it works flawlessly.... well that's debatable but you get the point. It is more about experience and features and getting in on the ground floor than it is about getting the maximum FPS in your games. If you are looking 20 FPS on a game where you got 100FPS in XP, you don't care. Now, if you lose 20 FPS on something that got 45FPS in XP you would care. Software never works right when it is released.... it is impossible to be bug free, ever. M$ does a good job getting mostly bug free (which is a relative term) out for the *world* to use. They aren't programming for just the US or just Europe, but the world. So, yes it isn't going to work right at first, duh its an OS. lol.
February 26, 2007 11:34:03 AM

I've been asked to remove it from machines because people (non-tech) really don't read, and if they do they don't really understand. They say it doesn't do what I thought it would do, and I ask what's that......they say I don't know..........figures.
History dictates this would be the same as Win95, Win98, and XP, all not really good in the beginning, it didn't disappoint either. I've been using it for a year now but I won't bring it home.
a b U Graphics card
February 26, 2007 11:44:46 AM

Easy, there is no game as of yet that uses DX10.
February 26, 2007 12:28:33 PM

Quote:
well, i like to experiment as much as the next guy, but I like to draw the line between playing (relaxing) and experimenting (trying to solve brain-wracking problems). From the questions that sometimes arise around here I get the impression that more ppl are installing vista out of ignorance (not stupidity) than out of a desire to experiment.

Also, can you please tell me what problems might arise with a Vista dual-boot? I was planning to buy a new hard drive and keep that for vista and it's associated software in it, physically at least it was going to be separate from my xp installation. Any programs which I was planning to run on both OSes I was going to install twice, one on each hard drive for each OS, so as to keep conflicts to a minimum. Do you see any problem with my reasoning?

P.S. I apologise if my posts sounded condescending or anything, it wasn't my intention. :oops: 


Using Vista is not a huge mistake, it's not a bad OS. Vista just has some maturing to do. It has features that work very nicely, such as super fetch. If I was to go out a buy an OS today, I would buy Vista. Why? To prepare for the future, it is as simple as that. Why am I going to spend money on an OS that I can not play future games on such as Halo 2. I was using Vista RC1 for a while and was able to play games on it just fine.

As for the issue with dual-booting, I did have an issue. I had installed XP prior to installing vista. I believe that to have been my mistake. Everything worked fine until I attempted to remove vista and leave XP. The installation of vista some how changed my XP partition from a primary to an extended partition and set the vista partition to a primary. So when I tried to remove vista, I was not able to format the partition it was on. I tried to use partition magic and it said that I had "bad partitioning" on that drive and it could do nothing. I ended up backing up data from that drive and low-level formating that whole drive. Since then I have found articles about the proper way to dual-boot vista and XP.

Vista XP dual-booting
a b U Graphics card
February 26, 2007 1:00:18 PM

This is non-question, really.

Why did we play DX7 or DX8 games when WinXP first came out, even after DX9 was released? Using Vista to play DX9 games is just the next step all gamers and enthusiast must take as newer technologies become more mainstream.

I remember looking forward to upgrading to DX9 from DX8 in WinXP because I knew I was gonna see a performance gain and more eye candy from games. With that in mind, I'm disappointed that M$ is not releasing a DX10 version for WinXP or WinXP 64.
February 26, 2007 1:26:29 PM

You may as well ask why gamers use dual core CPU's (no games support them yet). Vista is here to stay, you can stay with XP if you want to but Vista will eventually have the bugs worked out and when the games start supporting DX10 the early adopters will be ready to rock. :) 
February 26, 2007 1:26:37 PM

I'm building a new PC... why would I pay for 2 OS's???

Vista is the future, XP is the past.
February 26, 2007 1:28:30 PM

Quote:
Could anyone please answer me this question? Why do people insist on playing directx9 under vista when windowsxp is so much better in this regard? Is there some problem with dual-boot that I'm am not aware of? I'm planning on getting Vista64 when directx10 titles start coming out, but am still going to keep my WinXP-32bit installation for the directx 9 titles as there are millions of benchmarks that show that xp is more consistent than vista on dx9, so why people keep posting about vista problems beats me. Anybody care to answer?




Because there are no DX10 games, let alone a DX10 driver and we all own a DX9 title or two.
February 26, 2007 1:46:00 PM

Personally, Ive solved the problem this way:
I use Linux on my desktop, with Wine for a few older apps, and I play games either on emulators on or a console.
I thus got a complete OS with all productivity and development software I'd want, with 3D desktop and all, and with the money saved on software licences and non-upgraded hardware (you can use 3D desktop on Geforce2 hardware, compared with Geforce6 for Aero Glass; you are king of the hill with 1 Gb of RAM; you need less than 5 Gb to install a complete OS+apps), I can buy a top-notch console (whichever I prefer) and a few games.

In Europe, Vista Ultimate (the only complete Vista) costs 575€ (more than 700 USD); Office 2007, probably the same. RAM+GPU upgrades, add 300€ (360$).

Note: I won't mention upgrade/lower editions, due to the limitations in such a system: difficult clean installs, hardly transferrable (if you change your PC/motherboard, you have to buy Vista all over again).

For that price I can get a nice console and a HD TV plus a few games - and still enjoy a fast, versatile, all 3D PC.
February 26, 2007 1:48:52 PM

About dual-core cpus not being supported, you're wrong. Both supreme commander and company of heroes support dual-core. Maybe the use of dual-cores has a lot to improve as regards efficiency but to say that no games make use of dualcore is plain false.

To the guy that used a partition to install vista dual-boot, do u think I would have the same problem if I installed Vista on a separate physical hard drive, and keeping all programs etc separate for each OS?
February 26, 2007 2:05:25 PM

Supreme Commander actually scales to the number of processor cores... Quadro FX gets a gain on performance over 2 duo...

On another note... Linux is great... but the whole argument about saving money on licensing is tarded... I won't mention any specifics but you can get most proprietary(software you pay for) software for free.

Free software...is that possible?

*Cough*Warez*Cough*

WTF Who Said that
February 26, 2007 2:18:22 PM

What I don't understand is people using Vista-32.
To me it sounds as silly as running a 16-bit Windows NT.
Such a thing should not even exist.
February 26, 2007 2:39:07 PM

Supreme Commander not only scales to cores, it will support DX10 with a patch to be released in the next few weeks as well. WHQL DX10 drivers have been available since Feb. 20. Check facts.
February 26, 2007 2:42:48 PM

Mitch, if you change mobo/cpu, you do NOT need to repurchase windows. This is a FUD rumor that got started due to some poor wording in MS's early EULA for Vista, which has since been changed. You will need to call MS in order to reactivate your copy, that is all.
February 26, 2007 2:44:58 PM

I understand Vista-32 perfectly. While 64 is clearly the future, for now the overwhelming majority of apps are written for 32 bit and suffer, in some cases, extreme performance hits running in a 64 environment. Drivers are more stable in 32 as well. 64 bit's time has yet to come, though I expect sometime in the next two years we'll begin to see major shifts in that direction. Until then, 32 is still the way to go in terms of everyday ease of use.
February 26, 2007 2:57:34 PM

Company of heroes 1.50 already has the directx10 option under graphics shaders, however I don't know if it's functional or not as I'm still with XP. Anybody tried to see if it works?
February 26, 2007 3:04:32 PM

So I have vista ultimate because I built a new rig and overall it works very well. However I was having trouble with quake 4 crashing when I play online. Believe there is some compatability issues with vista itself and of course drivers arent right yet either for my cards. So last night I decided I couldn't take it anymore, decided to delete my mirror array and dedicate a drive to XP for a while. I have it set up that if you turn the computer on you go into Vista. But if you want to go into XP and the only reason at this point is to game then you must hit F8 at startup to go into the boot menu and that is where I will select the XP drive. Everything is seperate, like having two different computers. It works fine. I even disconnected the vista drive while doing the XP install just so I wouldn't get any XP system files on the vista drive. As it will do even if you are installing in another drive or partition as it detects first drive as C:. I think it is a great way to go as for everything else I do vista works well and I like the extra safty controls in visa for the family.
February 26, 2007 3:39:30 PM

For me Vista has actually made a couple of my games run better. Go figure.
February 26, 2007 3:58:43 PM

I wish that was my case. I think once the nvidia drivers are better it will probably be better.
February 26, 2007 4:23:46 PM

Quote:
Could anyone please answer me this question? Why do people insist on playing directx9 under vista when windowsxp is so much better in this regard?


There is generally not a lot of reasons to use Vista, a whole lot of reasons not to. Too much DRM, and a lot of bugs here in the start until MS makes a SP1. I would advise everybody to boycott Vista, at least until SP1 comes along. Then it is possible to see if MS got the messsage and makes the DRM voluntary (what about a add/remove item in Control panel?) and drops WGA and Activation. After SP1 those who can live with the DRM can port to Vista, while the rest probably will stay with XP or go to Linux.
February 26, 2007 5:04:05 PM

I cannot imagine we will ever need more then 640k! ~Bill Gates




_________________
No matter where you go or what you do, you live your entire life within the confines of your head”. ~Terry Josephson
February 26, 2007 5:08:25 PM

While I dont mind WGA / Activation as it protects the product, I hate how it enforces DRM (which protects someone else's product).
February 26, 2007 5:10:57 PM

good job m8, I'll try that out when I get my copy. I'm the only one that uses my computer so safety is not that much of a priority. Bascially, the only reason I'm getting vista is for directx10, nothing else. I use my pc for basically everything, watching tv via satellite, watching movies, reading, music, gaming, you name it. From what I've heard not even surround sound (Dolby Digital/DTS) in movies works right in Vista, so basically I keep finding reasons not to install anything except new games on Vista. In my opinion Vista was really a debacle, they should've released it when it was really ready and to cap it all some MS guy went blabbering about Vienna coming out in 2009. For me at least this makes Vista the new WinME, a little more refined but little more than a stopgap. There's nothing groundbreaking in it, especially considering the fact that they could have easily released directx10 for xp/xp64 and then released the whole shebang for Vienna. It really is expecting too much from people, first asking them to spend $700 in europe for the Ultimate and then telling them in 2yrs it's going to be worth zilch. In my case I'm the only reason I'm getting Vista so early is because I'm getting it with a student's package so it's really really cheap. Vista Ultimate+office 2007 about $135. Sweet eh? :D 
February 26, 2007 5:54:01 PM

I do everything under vista, and i have dual boot.. sure, there is a performance difference, but nothing another gig or 2 of ram (that i woulda bought for xp neways) wont fix :p 

and i do more than just game, i do alot of CAD and 3d modeling in programs like MAYA and Cinema4D, and im currently training for a few more programs like Catia.
February 26, 2007 6:22:58 PM

because in most games the performance difference isnt noticable. going from 60fps in CoH to 50 fps didnt make the game unplayable for me.
February 26, 2007 7:10:08 PM

Quote:
I cannot imagine we will ever need more then 640k! ~Bill Gates


Did you also think that Windows ME was better than Windows 98SE?
February 26, 2007 7:19:34 PM

Bill Gates never said that.


And WinME was a re branded win98SE that failed on many levels. WindowsSE was still far better as a package, and win2000 being even better.
February 26, 2007 7:37:14 PM

I liked 2000 pro myself.....
February 26, 2007 7:41:03 PM

Was a great OS, though XP in is current form is far superior to anything MS has.... and just in time to completely change it! (thanks Vista)
February 26, 2007 7:55:33 PM

Quote:
Bill Gates never said that. And WinME was a re branded win98SE that failed on many levels. WindowsSE was still far better as a package, and win2000 being even better.


My point was: Newer is not always better.

Windows NT 3.51 was always way better than the newer Windows 98 or the even newer Windows ME - it was so by design. In fact, Windows has gotten messier during the few last iterations, and Vista is going even further in the wrong direction. From a nice professional operation system (Windows NT4 or Windows 2000), Windows Vista is now papering to the unknowing mass consumer, and trying to "help" him/her in using a computer. It's constantly trying to second guess its user, and is more concerned with getting payment to Microsoft and Hollywood, than having people administrating their own computers and data as they choose.

I will pass on Vista at least for the next 12-18 months, perhaps forever. And I would suggest everybody else do the same. Maybe then Microsoft will take notice and develop a better OS. Or they can fork the operating system in a much more radical way than what is done today with the different flavours of XP and Vista.

To get a professional OS I would remove:

No DRM, Activation, WGA. Yes, we professionals will and do pay a reasonable amount for useful software. The OS should NOT play any protected content, thank you very much!

No "My documents", "My music", "My video",..... "My a***". Yes, I do know how/where to organize my data, and Windows should not interfere.

No wizards, "guides" or any such nonsense :!:

No UAP. No users do NOT run as administrators.

I have the right to modify the OS, anyway I like - no kernel checks. I do need administrator rights to do so.

Windows Profesional should only uses two directories under root: C:\Windows and C:\Program files. Any other system directories are placed under these two.

No online comerce included (music stores etc.) - thank you very much!

No applications should get preferencial treatment from the user interface or OS.

Then they can take all the "user friendly" and content friendly crap and include it in a consumer OS, which can be protected head to tail, to the delight of both Redmond and Hollywood.
February 26, 2007 8:02:22 PM

What you are talking about is the want for an NT OS, much like win2000 was supposed to be, and NT 4.


Vista is an every-man's OS, and it is ready to be the media center of peoples lives which is why most of your complains not valid.


However Vista does have a business version that should leave out all that you mentioned and i would %100 agree with you.
February 26, 2007 8:35:17 PM

Quote:
Vista is an every-man's OS, and it is ready to be the media center of peoples lives which is why most of your complains not valid.
However Vista does have a business version that should leave out all that you mentioned and i would %100 agree with you.


Thats, why I wrote that a code fork is urgently needed between the professional OS and the consumer OS. Or MS should only make the basic professional OS, and let 3rd parties make the consumer addons.
February 26, 2007 8:39:14 PM

I bought Vista, first because I believe it is going to be the next big thing no matter what everyone else thinks. M$ owns the PC everyone has to use it. Waiting to buy it for the excuse it will be cheaper is pointless, XP pro and home never got any cheaper then when they first went on sell, even after 5 years.

Second, because I didn't have a legitimate copy of Windows XP. I had one for Windows XP 64 bit, but that is the bastard stepson of M$ and never was completly supported with drivers or the odd less mass oriented software. I didn't want to spend $199 on XP Pro when I could buy the upgrade for Vista Ultimate for $249 with a student discount (Where did that guy find both Ultimate and office 2007 for $150?)

I am not niave enough to think that Vista this early would be without it's problems. In actuality it has been less trouble than I thought. Autocad does not work and there are no Vista audio drivers for my on board audio. But the XP drivers sounds and works fine.

I do have dual boot with my Windows XP 64 bit to make sure I still can use the programs and games I want to play. I have yet to try to play any games under Vista.

I guess I figured getting a legitimate copy of Windows was worth it after having bogus copies for so long and having to deal with getting cracks and workarounds for activations. I have saved money over the years I've only bought two operating systems in my life, DOS 5.0 (which came with my new 486 DX2-50 and (I think a copy DOS 6.2) I serously doubt Vienna will be on time for a 2009 release. At least I don't have to worry about finding a crack or whatever when, not if, I have to reinstall a M$ product.
February 26, 2007 8:39:41 PM

Ive always imagined the perfect OS being drivers and a menu... no antivirus, no anti spyware, no internet explorer, just a menu with a list of games on it, so that the os uses like 5 megs of ram, and the rest is pure gaming powerhouse :p  course the pc would have 2 boots so you could do the usual crap in, say, XP or OS X, or vista.
February 26, 2007 8:40:17 PM

...what people are you refering too? Almost no one is even running Vista. At the LAN party I went to last weekend the only person there running vista gave up on getting games to work with it and installed XP.

Is anyone here gaming with Vista at all? I watched it simply not work, repeatedly. Several game titles would crash for no appearant reason.
February 26, 2007 8:43:38 PM

Ive always imagined the perfect OS being drivers and a menu... no antivirus, no anti spyware, no internet explorer, just a menu with a list of games on it, so that the os uses like 5 megs of ram, and the rest is pure gaming powerhouse course the pc would have 2 boots so you could do the usual crap in, say, XP or OS X, or vista.


Sounds like when I needed a boot floppy to maximize the 640k of the low memory to play games. I had 16mb of ram when most new computers where being sold with 4mb. Yet I still had to worry about the 640k limit.

I have also pondered on having an operating system only use one core for itself and use the other core/cores for the game or app, even if the program wasn't written for multithreaded functions.
February 26, 2007 8:44:34 PM

I game in Vista.
I also use vista for everything else.
February 26, 2007 8:45:43 PM

Quote:
Ive always imagined the perfect OS being drivers and a menu... no antivirus, no anti spyware, no internet explorer, just a menu with a list of games on it, so that the os uses like 5 megs of ram, and the rest is pure gaming powerhouse :p  course the pc would have 2 boots so you could do the usual crap in, say, XP or OS X, or vista.


You mean Linux?



Quote:
Second, because I didn't have a legitimate copy of Windows XP. I had one for Windows XP 64 bit, but that is the bastard stepson of M$ and never was completly supported with drivers or the odd less mass oriented software. I didn't want to spend $199 on XP Pro when I could buy the upgrade for Vista Ultimate for $249 with a student discount (Where did that guy find both Ultimate and office 2007 for $150?)



At a college. Upgrade to Vista Ultimate + Office 2007 Student.
I believe he paid about $230 or so for both.
February 26, 2007 8:49:17 PM

but my idea is an OS that basically turns a PC into a gaming Console. Itd have to be cheap and supported by developers. I think itd be good if it used another OS to update itself and get drivers. Games would have to be installed on the other OS as the GamerOS would have no such capabilities. Itd be a menu with a list of games on it. No fancy UI, just a black screen with a bunch of titles on it.
February 26, 2007 8:50:13 PM

I plan on using Vista for everything first. If there is a problem or it doesn't work I will use Xp as a backup. I had the same setup for the first year XP came out with win 98, and 98/95 before that. I even did it with win 95 one partition and Dos 6.22 with Windows 3.1 on the other. Why not dual boot? Especially when you will have to reinstall sooner or later. later just install the later OS when it is mature.
February 26, 2007 9:23:07 PM

Quote:
While I dont mind WGA / Activation as it protects the product, I hate how it enforces DRM (which protects someone else's product).


"WGA / Activation" *is* DRM. WTH are you smoking? How does it protect you? It's freaking obnoxious is what it is. I had to run WGA like 4 times on the same computer within just a few hours this weekend to get it up to date. I already know it's a legit install, I dont need to be reminded every time I want to update the OS. What's in it for me? If my key got massively pirated it would get blacklisted which, btw, has happened to me with a WinXP Home re-install cd on another Dell system I was running before, the integrated key got blacklisted and I had to pirate an WinXP 8in1 cd to get it reinstalled with the correct key so it would let me go back to using the WinXP Home liscence that I had legitametely purchased, but I decided to upgrade myself to Pro Corp instead since M$ wasted so much of my time xD. Now if they blacklisted my key they'd take out one of their large corporate customers at the same time... WGA and DRM are one and the same, and they only negetively impact legit users. Pirate users don't have to deal with them at all so what exactly is the incentive to pay for a legit copy? I've used legit MS software many times in the past and all they did was greif me for it, never again. I've had a customer loose a 30gb MP3 collections that they PAYED for because their Mobo died invalidating their DRM keys, they'll never pay again either. I've had to do the "my dog ate my mobo" phone call to MS and read the code off to them, it's ridiculus. And this was with validation systems that were almost all bark and no bite. I'm not even touching Vista.

"Please MS, let me pay you hundreds of dollars to unnecessarily complicate my life with WGA and DRM." I think not. The more they try to trap me into it the less inclined I feel to put up with it so: Screw DX10, Screw the new MS Office file formats. With all the time I'll save not dealing with stupid DRM and buggy proprietary solutions I can maybe enjoy using my computer more :) 
February 27, 2007 6:49:39 AM

I read the EULA. You know, the ones that are not on the XP cdrom but only buried somewhere deep on Microsoft's website (because the one on the cdrom is 'subject to changes').
New validation is required everytime you change your motherboard (and not when 2-3 of the 5 elements you have on your system are changed).
Meaning that, if you change your HD then video card (enough to force revalidation), then change mobo, now you've expended all your registrations.

Vista can now be moved several times from one system to another, only if the licensee remains the same - revalidation required everytime though (with a phone call and a new license number every three installs), and this doesn't apply to OEM licenses - which fall back to 3 validations then 'go to jail, pay $500, don't get $2,000'. Same with 'upgrade' license.

About piracy: while it is still quite easy to crack M$ software, for one thing it's illegal, second there is enough trouble keeping Vista viable without having to follow all the cracks' evolution, third why should I bother roaming spyware/trojan/pr0n-infested Russian websites when all my apps are provided for free, supported by their programmers (quite often very communicative folks), maintained regularly and working better than pricier stuff?

Keeping a Linux system viable and fully up to date (apps included) is but a click away. Well, maybe not: Slackware may require a command line, I'm not sure.

(Note for the uninformed: Slackware is a very old, very stable, very BSD-ish, very outdated distribution for those people who think that Debian stable is not stable enough, and Ubuntu crashes too often - once a year).

And frankly, what's the use? On Wine on Linux, I can run Call Of Duty 2, Oblivion, HL2... Along with many older games. What's the need for a Microsoft OS?

Note: the Wine team has announced that they'll probably support DX10 when it is actually used, for it maps quite nicely with OpenGL functions...
February 27, 2007 7:04:20 AM

I got them that cheap cause they are government subsidized here in Malta.
February 27, 2007 7:18:34 AM

I also read the eula on the m$ website... there are many links to somewhere else, which in my mind makes it also 'subject to change'. I am not sure that the eula that they are using is entirely legal.

my 2p.
February 27, 2007 8:25:07 AM

oh, it's not - but they have the legal firepower to bury any complaint for years.

A big company would be interested in suing them, maybe - but it's money better spent migrating to Linux or MacOS (which is, actually, better than Vista and less expensive; also much less confusing since the Home, Premium, Professional, Server, Nose Cleaner, and Advanced Serving Wench with Leather Garter Belt editions are all the same...)
!