Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Vista and DX10, are you insane ??

Last response: in Windows Vista
Share
October 12, 2007 4:57:16 PM

Just thought I'd post a quote by Michael Brown, of MaximumPC Magazine.

[i said:
We thought DirectX 10 was going to be a crucial factor by now, but Vista is so screwed up from a gaming perspective we cant recommend installing it. And then theres the issue of high-def video playback to consider. Oy vey!
]
We thought DirectX 10 was going to be a crucial factor by now, but Vista is so screwed up from a gaming perspective we cant recommend installing it. And then theres the issue of high-def video playback to consider. Oy vey!
[/i]
And for those of you who have seen the benchmarking of XP/DX9 vs Vista/DX10, in the October 2007 issue,
then you will see that Vista has nothing what so ever to offer the end user.

XP blew the benchmarks out of the water over Vista, with Vista and DX10 taking about a 50% nose dive in performance.

Who in their right mind wants that kind of performance hit ??

DO YOU ??

I would take MaximumPC as a very good source of information, and if they think Vista sucks, I'm with them !!

So all you Vista fans, and anyone that overclocks and claims everything is a bed of roses with false benchmarks,
I think it's time to wake up and smell the coffee.

More about : vista dx10 insane

October 12, 2007 5:10:42 PM

who said VISTA > XP ?
October 12, 2007 5:19:32 PM

Quote:
who said VISTA > XP ?

...you mean besides MS and its affiliated computer resellers? :) 
Related resources
October 12, 2007 5:28:15 PM

yeah, bfg, this is the wrong forum fro a rant, we all hate vista too (in fact once I've seen what crysis looks like in dx10 (in the final build), I'll probably move back myself
October 12, 2007 5:30:57 PM

Are you kidding me, who doesn't think that on this forum ?

Just look at the new builds section, every man and his dog, is going with vista, or a dual boot, in the hope the vista will improve over night.

SP1 for vista is not even here, and it ain't going to include ANY features, it's a pure hot-fix/bug update.

Half the people on here, fall into the trap in the hope that they can use 4GB of ram or more, to salvage the disaster that is "Vista".
Or preying that a 64bit OS is going to improve CPU usage etc etc.

Vista is dead, it just doesn't know it yet !!
October 12, 2007 5:34:40 PM

Quote:
yeah, bfg, this is the wrong forum fro a rant, we all hate vista too (in fact once I've seen what crysis looks like in dx10 (in the final build), I'll probably move back myself


Hey not really a rant, but as I said, it's a quote from MaximumPC.

I'd say it's more of a recommendation, for all those folks looking for the next best graphics card,
and hoping that vista and DX10 is the answer.
And worring about if it supports DX10.1 or DX 11 and god knows what else.

Any serious computer user OR gamer, should just get of the Vista train, and call a cab.

Better the devil you know, as they say.
October 12, 2007 5:42:17 PM

I have to disagree you saying the "Vista has nothing what so ever to offer".. It has one thing to offer me, which is the reason I am now dual-booting XP and Vista..

When i was running just XP I always had problems playing HDDVD or BluRay.. I could get them to work occasionally, usually by loading the video files (.EVO etc..) directly into PowerDVD, but that was definitely hit or miss. i thought it might have been related to HDCP encoding or something so I even tried downloading a few pirated copies of HDDVD and BluRay but they would not work either.. So one day when, i thought f' it I'll try Vista out..

After I got Vista Ultimate installed I installed Power DVD 7.4, for the first time ever I saw a menu for HDDVD on my PC! not only did it show me the menu, but it played the movie! I thought, that has to be some kind of fluke, Vista is supposed to have all kinda of problems.. So I loaded up Tomb Raider on BluRay and it loaded right up and I could actually see the menu and play the movie.. I tried all 6 copies that I own and all 5 that I downloaded trying to get it to work and in XP, and every single one played perfectly in Vista. I could never do that with XP.. Although Bioshock ran like total crap on Vista and when I treid to hack my HTC Hermes phone it wouldnt work on Vista, so I formatted and put XP back on.

Now I am dualbooting so that I can game on XP and watch my HD shizzle in Vista... But my point is simply that Vista is not totally useless, not for me anyway..
October 12, 2007 5:48:46 PM

Gonna have to go with learn2read.

Vista is not recommended by MaximumPC for gaming, but an OS is not just used for gaming. Some people in the real world have to do other things on their computer and Vista offers features that XP does not.

Just because a product is not for you, does not mean it does not have features for other people. Try again...
October 12, 2007 5:51:26 PM

Quote:
Although Bioshock ran like total crap on Vista and when I treid to hack my HTC Hermes phone it wouldnt work on Vista, so I formatted and put XP back on.


I rest my case, adding a couple of funky new features does not make it a good OS.

There have been plenty of operating sytems that have had something to offer, new features and benefits.
Going from Windows 3.11 to win95 to win98 to win XP.

But never has an OS like Vista offered so very little and made so many people want to roll back to XP,
with the added feature of it making people want to jump off buildings, just to end it all and make the pain go away.

Even the big companies (Dell etc etc) are offering Roll-Back CDs, for anyone wanting to dump Vista and go back to XP.

What kind of message does that send.

Really, how many of you work for big companies that have taken the leap of faith and moved their entire IT systems to run on Vista ??
Any takers, NO ??

Anyway, this was not meant to be a big debate, but advice those people looking for new hardware, or the noobies to system builds, that I think (and MaximumPC think) this is an OS that should be avoided.
October 12, 2007 5:53:34 PM

I have not experienced any problems with Vista and I'm sure some might try to shot me down in flames for saying this, but I actually prefer Vista to XP....There I've said it :) 
When benchmarked XP still has the edge in performance for games, but Drivers have come a long way since Vista's release and the performance gap is smaller now. I prefer the more modern looks of the Vista operating system and I find start-up is quicker than XP. XP is still a great operating system, but Vista is not so bad as the hype may have you believe. 'Each to their own' seems like an appropriate statement.
October 12, 2007 5:56:00 PM

Meh, I got vista with this PC and happy somewhat with it, there are things that piss me off (uac disabled), the downloading thing where it takes 10 min to get a 100kb file copied, aero glass is pretty, but im using classic theme (looks worse than 98 se), my games all run smooth as silk and butter sandwich. When games start to show slowdowns, ill get xp (i sold it along with my old p4 a couple weeks ago :/  ).
October 12, 2007 5:58:59 PM

Quote:
I have not experienced any problems with Vista and I'm sure some might try to shot me down in flames for saying this, but I actually prefer Vista to XP....There I've said it :) 
When benchmarked XP still has the edge in performance for games, but Drivers have come a long way since Vista's release and the performance gap is smaller now. I prefer the more modern looks of the Vista operating system and I find start-up is quicker than XP. XP is still a great operating system, but Vista is not so bad as the hype may have you believe. 'Each to their own' seems like an appropriate statement.



I prefer my Vista over XP now to. I havn't had a single problem yet. Sure some people may. But none for me. :p 
October 12, 2007 6:00:47 PM

Quote:
When benchmarked XP still has the edge in performance for games, but Drivers have come a long way since Vista's release and the performance gap is smaller now.


Are you kidding me ??

You call a 50% nose dive in performance - "a small gap" ???
(see MaximumPC October 2007)
October 12, 2007 6:06:45 PM

Going to also have to go with my new favorite OS, Vista x64. I dont see what problems people have with it. Im not here to force anyone to adjust to liking a product. I think this is a pointless post, people are going to go with what they want. Who cares what the source is, if you are comfortable with something, you keep it.
October 12, 2007 6:11:21 PM

bfg72, shoo...

50% using what as the measuring tool? If a game is getting 2 frames per second on XP and is only playing at 1 frame per second on Vista, that is also remarked as a 50% performance loss... If you are going to quote crap, you need to give better context. Right now, you are just a bumbling idiot running around screaming "the sky is falling". And I am here to kick you in the nuts.

I am glad you cited one example that a user of a forum posted as the definitive reasoning for why XP is better than Vista in all aspects of operation? Get real...

Ultimately what is your point here? Thanks, you contributed to the community by making people aware that MaximumPC does not feel Vista is worthwhile to use as an OS for gaming and that perhaps it is better to stick with XP for gaming. For this reason, people dual boot between Vista and XP for gaming. Now, go away... nobody cares about your one sided radical opinion on Vista.
October 12, 2007 6:11:47 PM

Quote:
Who cares what the source is, if you are comfortable with something, you keep it.


+1
Well put
October 12, 2007 6:14:47 PM

BFG, you are quoting MaximumPC, but did you try and compare yourself? I used XP for many years and now using Vista. I like it more than XP. It recognizes a lot more hardware than XP did, looks better, has additional features and that 50% nose dive in performance you are talking about is BS. Tomshardware did a lot of comparisons. Go read articles from the beginning of this year. Look at real numbers and you will see that the difference was nowhere near 50%. Since than the gap got even smaller. I played Far Cry, Half Life 2 and STALKER on XP and Vista and there was no noticable difference.
October 12, 2007 6:17:31 PM

1_As Nick said , VISTA recognizes alot more hardware than XP

2_Also for now XP>VISTA in gaming ,but MS and NVIDIA are making new drivers and hotifixes for VISTA and they will help it

October 12, 2007 6:17:48 PM

Is it just me, or does this remind anyone else of the rants that were heard back when XP first came out?

Slow, resource hog, driver issues.....
October 12, 2007 6:18:26 PM

Quote:
bfg72, shoo...

50% using what as the measuring tool? If a game is getting 2 frames per second on XP and is only playing at 1 frame per second on Vista, that is also remarked as a 50% performance loss... If you are going to quote crap, you need to give better context. Right now, you are just a bumbling idiot running around screaming "the sky is falling". And I am here to kick you in the nuts.

I am glad you cited one example that a user of a forum posted as the definitive reasoning for why XP is better than Vista in all aspects of operation? Get real...

Ultimately what is your point here? Thanks, you contributed to the community by making people aware that MaximumPC does not feel Vista is worthwhile to use as an OS for gaming and that perhaps it is better to stick with XP for gaming. For this reason, people dual boot between Vista and XP for gaming. Now, go away... nobody cares about your one sided radical opinion on Vista.


Yes, very mature.
If the post does not interest you, none of you have to answer.

As for the quote, it came from MaximumPC as I said, not some random user in a forum.

And a "radical opinion on Vista" might aid a new user, to make an informed choice on a new build or purchase.

I never said it is 100% fact or written in stone, it just highlights a reliable source of information.

Makes me wonder why people are so quick to start throwing abuse and getting angry .. !!
October 12, 2007 6:18:59 PM

I'll keep enoying Vista 64, running flawlessly(did require work), and you can stick with XP.

Everyone in a network environment will switch to vista, far more intuitive then XP ever was.
October 12, 2007 6:20:11 PM

Quote:
Although Bioshock ran like total crap on Vista...


What are you talking about, I got more then enough FPS in Bioshock to play it. I never receive any choppiness due to low frames. All I ever see is tearing on my screen from time to time.

Honestly, use vista yourself! I have said this before, and I will say it again. Vista is for new systems only running the new(er) processors (either Intel or AMD, like any core 2 duo or better and any decent AMD). You need to have about 2 gigs of RAM (min) and a good video card (like a newer one (anything from the X1XXX line or up from ATI or anything from the 7XXX line or up from NVIDIA... and this is really decent hardware)).

If you do not have this a system like this, you can not blame Microsoft that you don't have anything better.

I prefer Vista over XP not only because it just works... or its more secure... or it has a compatibility mode that works... or that it looks better... or that it loads windows faster... or that it lets me do what I want... or that it updates easier... or that games normally work on it (for those who don't, it cause they have not been patch for it). And hell, I am running 64bit version of Vista. 32bit is even more compliant with hardware and software.


BFG72: Stop assuming things and use it yourself. I subscribe to Maximum PC and I have to say that when I read that article I was very disappointed in them. They let me down an forgot that they did the same (like everyone did) to XP when that first came out.

And second, what new news have you told us that we have not already heard about?

Sorry that you don't like DX10 and or can not run it yourself. I know that World in Conflict is a great game, visual (in DX10) and story line. And I know Bioshock is a great game too (visual (in DX10 with well over 30-60 fps) and story line.).
October 12, 2007 6:22:13 PM

bfg72,
You don't even have a video card.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
October 12, 2007 6:28:23 PM

I have Vista 64 with 4 gigs of RAM. I haven't had a single problem running any game at high frame rates.

Team Fortress 2 runs very smoothly at 1680 x 1050.

Portal runs very smoothly at 1680 x 1050.

BF 2142 runs very smoothly at 1680 x 1050.

All features turned on.

What gets me about this is if I can get 150 fps on XP and only 80 fps on Vista, what do I care?? I'm still getting 80 fps.
October 12, 2007 6:28:25 PM

Any os that takes up 650mb of ram at idle is crap, sorry.
October 12, 2007 6:29:47 PM

is Direct X 10.1 XP compatible *_^ lets make a petition for it!.

why gaze at idle OS? (aero, "analog clock" & such)

we need the XP SP 3/4 that can do Direct X 10 or later!
October 12, 2007 6:35:00 PM

Quote:
What gets me about this is if I can get 150 fps on XP and only 80 fps on Vista, what do I care?? I'm still getting 80 fps.


Isn't that the point, when you want to play the next best game (may or may not be CRYSIS)
You will care that you are only getting 80fps, and not 150fps.

Not sure why this is getting everyone annoyed, well only the Vista users anyway.

IF, half of you had read the full thread, I am not quoting random strangers from forums, and I simply high-lighting information from realiable sources.

Life is too short for such dramas anyway. I can sit back very peacefully and read with serenity.

If you guys want to rant and rave, and throw abuse, have fun !!

I just hope that if offers opinions and options to people who may not know any different.
Just because they have had Vista forced upon them by a dealer, or the media.
October 12, 2007 6:37:28 PM

i tried both, n ill say, in future we might go to vista. but atm, XP is offering all i need. n what i need is pure gaming.
October 12, 2007 6:42:30 PM

Quote:
Isn't that the point, when you want to play the next best game (may or may not be CRYSIS)
You will care that you are only getting 80fps, and not 150fps.



There becomes a point where more frames per second is unnoticeable 80FPS to 150FPS is an example of this :) 

Crysis is Direct X 10, so Vista users will be able to enjoy the improved visuals providing they have appropriate hardware.
October 12, 2007 6:44:51 PM

Quote:
bfg72,
You don't even have a video card.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

bfg72,
What card where you running with Vista?
October 12, 2007 6:48:37 PM

Quote:
Any os that takes up 650mb of ram at idle is crap, sorry.

This is a moronic argument, and it's unfortunate it's so widespread.

So you are telling me that you need more free RAM while sitting idle? For what?

So you are telling me that you would prefer that the OS did not intelligently use prefetch to the RAM from the HD to improve application start-up times?

Let me get this correctly, you'd rather have an OS not use RAM in a situation where you don't need it for anything else, so that it can have higher app start-up times?

Get some effing common sense before you start spewing BS out. Stop believing everything you hear / read and develop some critical thinking skills.

Goes to the OP, too. Nice flamebait of a thread.
October 12, 2007 6:49:43 PM

Quote:
Isn't that the point, when you want to play the next best game (may or may not be CRYSIS)
You will care that you are only getting 80fps, and not 150fps.

Not sure why this is getting everyone annoyed, well only the Vista users anyway.

IF, half of you had read the full thread, I am not quoting random strangers from forums, and I simply high-lighting information from realiable sources.

Life is too short for such dramas anyway. I can sit back very peacefully and read with serenity.

If you guys want to rant and rave, and throw abuse, have fun !!

I just hope that if offers opinions and options to people who may not know any different.
Just because they have had Vista forced upon them by a dealer, or the media.


I'm not annoyed or dramatic. I just think you're trying to make a point on a topic that is very subjective depending on who you are.

I like eye candy... I much prefer it at higher fps, but if I can have both (which I do in Vista) I'm all that much happier.

I can wait for the drivers to catch up to the hardware/games. ATI just released a new driver that increases performance (so they say anyway, grain of salt time) by 80% (probably 10-15% is more realistic). So while you're playing your DX9 games at 200 fps I'll play DX10 games at 100 fps and be happy.

The next best/next gen games are going to push the limits of OS's and hardware... until my GTX/Vista 64/4 gigs of RAM is pushed where it can't perform, why would I complain one iota about it?
October 12, 2007 6:53:52 PM

I tested early builds of Vista, then more recent betas, then RCs... I was underwhelmed.
When it came out, I tested it on a beefy laptop: although said laptop had specs at four times as powerful as the older laptop it was supposed to replace, it ran incredibly slower than XP.
Starting with the first beta of Vista, I migrated most of my apps and tasks to open source apps. When Vista came out, I installed Mandriva Linux.
While a correctly configured Windows XP SP2 feels snappy and doesn't add too much overhead on the system, Vista is just Too Damn Slow.
A friend of mine got a laptop with Vista Home Basic preinstalled. She's an utter noob, barely knowing what the second button on the mouse is for. I installed Ubuntu on said laptop. She's now using it exclusively: no more 15 minutes boot time, no more 10 minutes shutdown time, no more 2 minutes wait for a file copy to start...
For me, Vista is indeed a time travel in computer history: 'get Vista, see how fast computers worked 15 years ago'. I was there then - I know what I'm talking about.

About hardware requirements: an OS that uses 400 Mb of RAM while idle is, indeed, crap. Of course some services are required; however, there are services that just stand there idling away all the time, and which will be required at best once a day, at worst... never. For those services, why not merely load a watcher or a scheduler that will start them when they are required?
There are also a lot of DLLs loaded at boot time in the case they are required. I'm sorry, but dynamic linking hasn't been created for nothing!
I mean, what's best? An extra two seconds loading for those applications that are actually using those DLLs (and which can remain loaded, or in disk cache, afterwards), or a cumulated 10 minutes of hard disk activity to load all those DLLs that are, often, not used at all during the session?
October 12, 2007 6:57:59 PM

The 50% performance drop remarked about is from DX9 in XP to DX10 in Vista... not only not apples to apples, it's closer to apples to coconuts. DirectX 10 carries with it a significantly higher level of shader complexity, something that isn't being mentioned. That being said, some games have very little performance drop from DX9 to DX10 (Bioshock, World in Conflict), while others have major drops mainly due to poor implementation (Lost Planet, Call of Juarez, Company of Heroes).

Try comparing DX9 performance in XP to DX9 in Vista... it's effectively a wash. Then you factor in faster application launch times and task switching, an improved windowing manager, a reworked TCP/IP stack, and a bunch of added security features... the choice is pretty obvious.

The original poster comes off as somebody who is getting upset that he might actually have to buy a new copy of an OS after XP's been out for over six years now... at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. Progress happens, and you adjust or get left behind. Take your pick.
October 12, 2007 7:05:35 PM

mitch074

At last, somebody who saw the point behind this.

-----

It wasn't a debate about who had the best hardware.

The point is AGAIN, for those who don't spend the time to read the whole thread, is that it simply showed information about an OS that might not benefit everyone.

It's an opinion, and to be honest it was not even mine as I said, it is the opinion from a magazine (MaximumPC Oct 2007), who I am sure without a doubt, has far more knowledge and experience than anyone in this forum.

I just think people looking for the latest and greatest hardware and software should consider reading the article, and reviewing OS's before jumping on the band-wagon and flaming people and throwing abuse.

I'm sure you'll all be very disappointed with the first Vista Service pack, and can be mature enough to respect other peoples opinions.

Like I say, why would so many large companies be offering Roll-Back CDs if Vista was so great !!
October 12, 2007 7:06:34 PM

Killer, well said!
October 12, 2007 7:13:09 PM

Quote:
The original poster comes off as somebody who is getting upset that he might actually have to buy a new copy of an OS after XP's been out for over six years now... at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. Progress happens, and you adjust or get left behind. Take your pick.


I am by far from upset or as angry as some of the people seem to be over this.

But I would FULLY agree with you "killer_roach", progress happens.

I just don't think Vista is really "progress" right now.

It will have its day, and it is the future of Windows, and I have used it, and was very impressed to be honest.
That said, I'm impressed with flying cars and space travel, both of which are around today, but they are not ready or practical options for the average user.

I will be the first one to line up for my copy of Vista (and service pack 2) when it's a viable option and a stable OS.
October 12, 2007 7:15:44 PM

pffft, who needs xp or vista? I still run windows 3.1 and it takes up almost zero resources. I have such an advantage over you noobs.
October 12, 2007 7:21:12 PM

"I am sure without a doubt, MaximumPC staff has far more knowledge and experience than anyone in this forum" - another ridiculous statement.
October 12, 2007 7:23:31 PM

Please, define "stable OS". I have been running Vista since the beginning of the year and it has been stable, no problems at all.
October 12, 2007 7:27:08 PM

Vista was such a flop. Im looking at it from a business perspective. MS totally *ucked up. And no, they wont go bankcrupt.

If you have Vista, great. If you know how $hit Vista is and decide to get if for experimental purposes, great (just have XP close by). If you're a poor consumer that doesnt know the diffs like Mrs Robinson, then I am happy to flame MS and publicly broadcast how rubbish their product actually is.

SP1 will probably only be here in 6-8 months. No rush to Vista for me. When I built this PC over a year ago, people laughed cause I went DX9 and said I should rather wait for DX10 (which was originally supposed to come out in Dec06).

Its always just marketing, and we ALWAYS buy into the hype, cause we're all just *ucking freaks! Came down. Buy cheap components that will be replaced in 2 years, and dont get ripped off or disappointed.

If DX11 is announced in 5 months, just forget it. When its on the market and you're ready to build, choose whats best. Stop chasing the latest and greatest. You'll get crushed everytime.

Note: C2D was a pleasant surprise for me, although availibility was a joke and prices were not as advertised.

HAPPY RANTING!
October 12, 2007 7:29:56 PM

By the way - anyone remember a company called AGEIA. Anyone remember that bull$hit marketing campaign that burnt many a friend.

ARRGGHHHHHHHHHHH. Save your money !!!!!! Go on vacation.
October 12, 2007 7:33:16 PM

I would switch to Linux tomorrow if there was more driver support. That OS is SUPER FAST. Hardly uses any resources.

When I did a fresh install, XP was fast. 1 year later, it takes about 6min to boot into it. Never had Linux long enough to see if it had similar issues, but I do no MS developers have no clue. They should work harder at making SW more HW efficient.

Remember the days when they were constrained by HW and were forced to operate in such tight parameters. Now that was good programming.
October 12, 2007 7:38:26 PM

Quote:
"I am sure without a doubt, MaximumPC staff has far more knowledge and experience than anyone in this forum" - another ridiculous statement.

Agreed since the author of this statement shall be included because they continue to refer to this source without replying to this in-experienced poster's questions such as :
bfg72,
You don't even have a video card.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

bfg72,
What card where you running with Vista?

So statements from this source seem ir-relvelant since their basis is a magazine article and no personal experience.

October 12, 2007 7:42:20 PM

the fact of the matter is, the problems with Vista WILL (and that is not a maybe) get better over time, IMO at this time Vista is NOT worth the upgrade from a pure gaming perspective, HOWEVER it is an all around better user interface, it may not really matter but I like aero glass, I like nice little touches like that, but it is undeniable that VISTA HURTS GAMING PERFORMANCE AT THE PRESENT TIME, I don't know precisly why that is, it could be lazy software developers, or poor drivers, but I doubt that when the next OS from M$ comes out, that will be a performance hog for a while to
October 12, 2007 7:46:21 PM

Quote:
Are you kidding me ??

You call a 50% nose dive in performance - "a small gap" ???
(see MaximumPC October 2007)


I think there is a bit of confusion here. The 50% difference probably refers to Vista running a game in DX10 mode vs XP running a game in DX9 mode. There certainly isn't that difference between Vista in DX9 and XP in DX9.

From my point of view, I've been running Vista now for 6 months and I love it. I turned all the UAC stuff off, trimmed the services to reduce the memory footprint, and it runs like a dream on my PC. Apps load up much faster than XP (due to superfetch), the OS loads really quickly and it's totally stable. It looks lovely too - much better than XP.

And you've got to love an OS that automatically defrags your hard drive for you.
October 12, 2007 7:49:10 PM

actually, the defrag on vista is one of my pet hates, GIVE ME A PROGRESS BAR FOR ****'S SAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, how am I supposed to know if it will take 3 hours or 5 minutes?
October 12, 2007 7:59:12 PM

Quote:



it is the opinion from a magazine (MaximumPC Oct 2007), who I am sure without a doubt, has far more knowledge and experience than anyone in this forum.



So nobody's allowed to like Vista because of some magazine :sarcastic:  I'll have my opinion of Vista (Like it) and they can have theirs.
October 12, 2007 8:09:15 PM

Quote:
The point is AGAIN, for those who don't spend the time to read the whole thread, is that it simply showed information about an OS that might not benefit everyone.

Like I say, why would so many large companies be offering Roll-Back CDs if Vista was so great !!

October 12, 2007 8:17:53 PM

Quote:

From my point of view, I've been running Vista now for 6 months and I love it. I turned all the UAC stuff off, trimmed the services to reduce the memory footprint, and it runs like a dream on my PC. Apps load up much faster than XP (due to superfetch), the OS loads really quickly and it's totally stable. It looks lovely too - much better than XP.


Isn't that the point .. ??

You had to tweak and modify, and turn off features, to get an OS to run as desired.
Now how do you make the comparison with XP ??

If I benchmarked an overclocked AMD 3Ghz processor to 4Ghz,
then claimed it was faster than "Average Joe's" Intel 3Ghz, would that be fair ??

AGAIN, it was an option to give "average Joe" some information on an OS that might not suit their needs,
or performance requirements.

Why is everyone getting so frustrated over such a simple thread, I think some of you need to take a time out and join the real world.
A forum should be a happy friendly place to discuss, advice, share and debate, which seems a little too hard for some people.
!