Why do ppl insist on playing DX9 games with vista?

[mannwhite]

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?

 

[cb62fcni]

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.

 

[Primitivus]

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

 

[mannwhite]

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.

 

[SSS_DDK]

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...

 

[SuperFly03]

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.

 

[MasterLee]

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.

 

[runswindows95]

Easy, there is no game as of yet that uses DX10.

 

[AdamBomb42]

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.

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

 

[chunkymonster]

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.

 

[HA_ZEE]

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.

 

[Twisted_Sister]

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

Vista is the future, XP is the past.

 

[crazypyro]

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.

 

[mitch074]

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.

 

[mannwhite]

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?

 

[miltoxbeyond]

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

 

[enewmen]

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.

 

[cb62fcni]

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.

 

[cb62fcni]

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.

 

[cb62fcni]

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.

 

[mannwhite]

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?

 

[h2oman]

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.

 

[Spidubic]

For me Vista has actually made a couple of my games run better. Go figure.

 

[h2oman]

I wish that was my case. I think once the nvidia drivers are better it will probably be better.

 

[bga]

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.