Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Vista Offers Nothing to Gamers

Tags:
  • Gaming
  • Windows Vista
  • Microsoft
  • Video Games
  • Product
Last response: in Video Games
Share
March 1, 2007 3:49:50 PM

Gaming on Vista doesn't completely suck, but it isn't the picnic Microsoft claimed it would be. TwitchGuru takes a look at installing and running a few choice titles from a gamer's point of view..

More about : vista offers gamers

March 1, 2007 5:14:47 PM

Quote:
Gaming on Vista doesn't completely suck, but it isn't the picnic Microsoft claimed it would be. TwitchGuru takes a look at installing and running a few choice titles from a gamer's point of view..

Ok. So when is the FIRST big release made for Vista? (or a XP game with a Vista Update)
DX9L is good enough, but it should be 64bit and multi-core.
I can't think of any.
March 1, 2007 9:40:39 PM

Crysis comes to mind. It has been touted as sporting the all new DX10 hotness, but it kind of seems far away-ish on the release calendar.
Related resources
March 1, 2007 9:47:18 PM

:( 

I'm tired of this. The PS3 crap, the comic movie garbage, and now Vista, which we all knew would have these problems? Dig new dirt, guys. You're stuck in a hole. :p 

Hey look, post 911! Someone call an ambulance, TwithGuru is dying. *Razz*
March 1, 2007 9:55:36 PM

Quote:
so I was forced to play "Doom 3" in its retail state


Excuse me RobWright, but when was that copy of Doom 3 obtained? All the retail copies available today "should" be patched up to the latest patch, and I doubt that id are still making patches for Doom 3.
March 1, 2007 10:03:50 PM

*cough* Travis Meacham wrote the article. *cough*
March 1, 2007 10:31:39 PM

Quote:
Crysis comes to mind. It has been touted as sporting the all new DX10 hotness, but it kind of seems far away-ish on the release calendar.

Ya, I was afraid someone will say that.
It seem Crysis is way ahead of everyone else.
March 1, 2007 10:39:56 PM

Oops, my bad :oops:  I had already closed the old page & couldn't be bothered opening a new one, so I just cut & paste form the OP. Geez I'm lazy sometimes. :lol: 
March 1, 2007 10:47:59 PM

>>Vista Offers Nothing to Gamers

I think Vista offers a lot of new things to gamers comparing to XP 8)
Slowing down game performance
Constant crash
Stupid side bar pop-up all the time in game (Oblivion) slowing down frame rate
Unplayable and installation problem
March 1, 2007 11:17:15 PM

Most of the compatibility problems I have had, and I am guessing everyone else, is not with Vista, but rather with Nvdia and ATI drivers. Unfortunate that Vista is taking the brunt of the damage.

I believe the solution for Neverwinter Nights is a Gefore 8800GTX. This is an automatic 5.9 in your Windows Experience Index scores. Wondering how high it will go when they open up scores 6.0+. Just imagine SLI? Installing NWN2 in a RIAD configuration helps big time too. I'm playing it with every setting maxe and an Index of 5.2 (my Core 2 Duo E6600 only gets a 5.2, haven't needed to overclock it yet).

Supreme Commander is supposed to have a DX10 version coming. It is supposedly programmed to utilize multiple cores as well. Do not believe it does anything 64-bit though. I'm thinking Crysis will not be the first DX10 game, just one of the best ones.

I do not see any genuine advantages to using Vista over XP, but I have no doubt that Vista is going to be the place to be, and I think it behooves all PC Gamers to support Microsoft and the Games for Windows; I think they can/are pushing PC Gaming forward.
March 2, 2007 12:11:36 AM

Gaming really does suck right now for Vista... but so does a lot of other things.

Oblivion has never run better for me though! The only crash is when you exit the game. Everything is maxed out and I can still fight when outside!

BF2142... still can't get it to run after switching to Vista. Mind you, it never really ran right under XP.

Doom 3 runs for me although FPS drops really low every once in awhile.

Dark Messiah... can't even get to the main menu without it crashing.

Haven't tried out any other games yet, as I'm still trying to get my MCE and internet running correctly.

Like Trebuken said... I think it has a lot more to do with driver support from Nvidia, ATI and Creative more than it has to do with Vista itself. Give it time... we will be gaming again!
March 2, 2007 12:11:57 AM

Quote:
I do not see any genuine advantages to using Vista over XP, but I have no doubt that Vista is going to be the place to be, and I think it behooves all PC Gamers to support Microsoft and the Games for Windows; I think they can/are pushing PC Gaming forward.


So we should just follow Microsoft's initiatives blindly because they have our best interests at heart?

This despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary that current gaming on Vista is a worse experience than on XP? Yes, some of the issues are the fault of nVidia or AMD/ATI for not releasing good drivers yet, but not all of them. Especially installation issues. Further it has been said that a lot of the driver issues are either due to MS's lack of cooperation with HW manufacturers on driver development, or the poor handling of OpenGL by Vista (gee, I wonder why?)

If we just follow along blindly like sheep rather than speaking up about the issues, I can guarantee you that they will certainly not "push PC gaming forward." Vista is where we will all be forced to go eventually, but with enough outcry and low sales, maybe by then it will be a product that we will actually want to use for gaming.
March 2, 2007 3:52:28 AM

Quote:
Eventually they want Vista to run games right off the disc with the hard drive being used as a scratch disc


Say that again???

Is this a console we're talking about or a computer?

I've been an anti-advocate for as long as I can remember when it comes to PC games refusing to work without the physical disc in the CD or DVD drive. For obvious reasons, of course. Even the fastest optical drives are still SLOW compared to the speed of a hard drive. All the information on the disc can be stored on the hard drive when installing a game itself. Likewise, modern games that need internet access to register and keycodes to install render the need to have a physical disc present completely obsolete. Handling the discs all the time puts them subject to damage. And in the worst case event if the disc does ever get damaged, it makes the game unplayable, possibly prevents any reinstall, and next to impossible to obtain a replacement from the manufacturer.

:evil:  PITA :evil: 

While stubborn game manufacturers have done this for ages as a form of copy protection, it is outdated, ineffecive and obsolete when you look at how computers are connected today, the needs of gamers and how gamers like to use their machines.

There is, after all, a reason behind software such as Alcohol 120%...

Running games right off the disc? Why do you think I don't own an Xbox?
March 2, 2007 4:09:51 AM

Quite True. The whole idea of running PC games directly from the disk is flawed on many levels, and would be a step backwards for gamin, even with ever-increasing disk storage sizes.
March 2, 2007 4:14:32 AM

i tried to install alot of game on my vista ... old C&C work perfectly O.o RA2,Tib Sun, Renegade, General .... UT2k4, AVP2 and Halo work right too ... but i cant get Swat4 installing right ... BF2142 got some big fps drop during game, AOE3 too ... and i play with a A64 3200+ with a 7600GS and 2gb of ram ... ya Vista dont help us with game ... i changed cause i got a good deal ... but i think ill reinstall XP in dual boot for game ...
March 2, 2007 11:04:40 AM

Quote:
Supreme Commander is supposed to have a DX10 version coming. It is supposedly programmed to utilize multiple cores as well. Do not believe it does anything 64-bit though. I'm thinking Crysis will not be the first DX10 game, just one of the best ones.


It's not really using dual or quad cores in the best way for alot of people, although having a dual or quad improves performance drastically, and it does use the 2nd or 3rd, 4th core, but very little.

Quote:
I do not see any genuine advantages to using Vista over XP, but I have no doubt that Vista is going to be the place to be, and I think it behooves all PC Gamers to support Microsoft and the Games for Windows; I think they can/are pushing PC Gaming forward.


You sound serious, I feel there's hidden sarcasm in that sentence.
March 2, 2007 11:37:56 AM

Quote:


I think they can/are pushing PC Gaming forward.


You sound serious, I feel there's hidden sarcasm in that sentence.

Quite. The only thing Microsoft are pushing is their luck.

Vista has been touted as a gaming o/s. It was imperative, then, that they worked with ATI and nVidia to get stable drivers at the point of release. To release Vista knowing that gamers were going to have problems for months is greedy and downright reckless.
March 2, 2007 11:59:01 AM

well I went to a mates place to do some network gameing just a small net games on 4 computers
he had just loaded vista on his pride a joy and we tried to network a re-vamped oldy that was re-released on DVD ( red alert ,generals,C&C )
and we could not network it because its networked useing ipx
vister dosn't utilise ipx so our marathon gameing went up in smoke we did get to play Unreal tourney 2004
are there other aplication that would still use the ipx protocole or has everything else gone over to tcp/ip
I have a small network of computers at home 4 all up myself and i just bought xp pro one month ago for my latest build because i knew that i would only have hasles with drivers like i had with my old games going from dos to windows
I dont pretend to be a computer genius hence i am asking
Gazza
March 2, 2007 12:44:03 PM

Between my ATI and NVidia Vista PCs, I found what games don't work well on one works well on the other. As far as I can see, its completely a driver issue. I love how the article expects older games to have the latest feature support - never let known reality impact your expectations!
March 2, 2007 12:51:24 PM

Quote:


Vista has been touted as a gaming o/s. It was imperative, then, that they worked with ATI and nVidia to get stable drivers at the point of release. To release Vista knowing that gamers were going to have problems for months is greedy and downright reckless.


One of the pithier summations I have seen of Microsoft's behavior. I have said it before in these forums - the only people who should use Vista as their front-line OS are folks willing to be unpaid beta testers. If you are a techie and want to play, feel free, but presumably you are smart enough to know how to protect yourself from problems, and to fix them when they occur. Mainstream, technically unsavvy users should always wait for the first service pack before adopting any new MS OS.

As far as improving gaming goes, the only substantive benefit I see at this point is DX10, and with no games for it yet (and the prohibitive hardware cost for me to upgrade to be able to use it anyway) I can't see moving to Vista anytime before 2008. EOR - end of rant :x
March 2, 2007 1:17:17 PM

How can they bash Vista so much and still let Vista adverts on their site???
March 2, 2007 1:41:54 PM

Quote:
I do not see any genuine advantages to using Vista over XP, but I have no doubt that Vista is going to be the place to be, and I think it behooves all PC Gamers to support Microsoft and the Games for Windows; I think they can/are pushing PC Gaming forward.


So we should just follow Microsoft's initiatives blindly because they have our best interests at heart?

This despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary that current gaming on Vista is a worse experience than on XP? Yes, some of the issues are the fault of nVidia or AMD/ATI for not releasing good drivers yet, but not all of them. Especially installation issues. Further it has been said that a lot of the driver issues are either due to MS's lack of cooperation with HW manufacturers on driver development, or the poor handling of OpenGL by Vista (gee, I wonder why?)

If we just follow along blindly like sheep rather than speaking up about the issues, I can guarantee you that they will certainly not "push PC gaming forward." Vista is where we will all be forced to go eventually, but with enough outcry and low sales, maybe by then it will be a product that we will actually want to use for gaming.

Current Gaming with current games is a worse experience on Vista, why wouldn't it be? The games were not written for it so why would there be an improvement? There is also a clear loss of performance in most games; due to Vista overhead, or immature drivers??? who knows?

The reason I am supposrrting Microsoft and Games For Windows 'blindly' is because they seem to be doing more to promote PC Gaming than has ever been done before and as a lifelong Gamer I think this is huge (I'd take my PC over my PS3/360/Wii any day of the week). Sure Microsoft is in it for the money, but if games like Supreme Commander are the result I'm cool. No one else is stepping up to the plate so I'm following Microsoft.

I believe the immature drivers are a result of Microsoft's constant Vista revisions and hesitance to provide finalized material to Nvidia and ATI, nothing more. The drivers will be mature soon enough, possibly May'ish when ATI's new DX10 cards come out?

The OpenGL issue is a little disappointing, but obviuosly Microsoft is going to promote DX10 over it. OpenGL support will likely also be improving at a later date with 3rd party support.

'OpenGL and Direct3D are treated the same by Windows Vista, resulting in full integration into the OS for both APIs. For example, both Direct3D and OpenGL will get transparency and dynamic thumbnails when Windows Aero is on, and all the WDDM features (video memory virtualization, etc.) will work in a similar fashion.'

The issues of Vista are in essence 'backwards compatibility' issues,; similar to the Xbox 360 and PS3 have been facing, and is similar to the other Windows launches, the difference being 'Compatibility Mode' and the free Virtual PC 2007 you can add to Vista.
March 2, 2007 2:38:12 PM

Quote:
I believe the immature drivers are a result of Microsoft's constant Vista revisions and hesitance to provide finalized material to Nvidia and ATI, nothing more. The drivers will be mature soon enough, possibly May'ish when ATI's new DX10 cards come out?


You sum up a lot of the problems right here, and this issue is clearly MS's fault. With this statement you contradict yourself in two ways:
1: Earlier you said driver issues were the fault of nVidia, ATI, and Creative, etc - but this statement puts the blame on MS for not enabling them to do their jobs properly.2: You say MS "seem to be doing more to promote PC Gaming than has ever been done before", but the fact that the above is true, and that MS knew there would be numerous driver issues and released Vista prematurely due to fear of OS X getting too popular with non-gamers belies that statement.

Quote:
Current Gaming with current games is a worse experience on Vista, why wouldn't it be? The games were not written for it so why would there be an improvement? There is also a clear loss of performance in most games; due to Vista overhead, or immature drivers??? who knows?
Since Vista is the next generation Windows, and designed with being used as a gaming platform in mind, that the games were not written for it is irrelevant. This is supposed to be an improvement on the system the games were written for. A lot of the issues do seem to be driver issues, but that goes back to the statements above.

Quote:
The issues of Vista are in essence 'backwards compatibility' issues,; similar to the Xbox 360 and PS3 have been facing, and is similar to the other Windows launches, the difference being 'Compatibility Mode' and the free Virtual PC 2007 you can add to Vista.
PCs are a whole different animal than consoles, and because of their much higher degree of flexibility, we should not expect to see this many compatibility issues. And using the console example, PS2 played many PS1 games better than the PS1 itself.

The issues with gaming in Vista seem to be on-par if not more than there were with the XP release, but there is one major difference: the XP Release was a HUGE change fro the previous generation (Win98), and problems were to be expected. Given the fact that Vista is much closer to an incremental release of XP than a revolutionary change, and that they should have learned something from the XP launch (they apparently didn't, or more likely, don't care), we should NOT be seeing the level of issues that we are. XP also has compatibility mode by the way, it is about 95% useless if you've ever tried it.
March 2, 2007 2:40:50 PM

Quote:
How can they bash Vista so much and still let Vista adverts on their site???
Money...
March 2, 2007 2:49:02 PM

There most definetly is a machine that will run never winter nights 2 with everything turned up all the way at 1920x1200 resolution.... and my machine doesnt have the latest hardware either... just 2x7900 gtx in sli with an fx60 processor, 2 gigs of ddr (not ddr2) pc3500 ram, and 2x raptors striped... game runs at over 50 fps with all settings set to maximum...

it's sad that such a nice machine that you built for this test couldnt handle it with vista... I wonder how never winter nights 2 would do with that setup in xp, maybe it would be perfictly playable...
March 2, 2007 3:54:16 PM

Vista has many changes behind the scenes so it may look like an incremental release.

The biggest challenge that I had with Vista is running games that save the data in the same or different folder in Program Files. My kids YuGiOh Power of Chaos games I had to elevate the game to run as administrator so it would see the saved games and the cards that they currently have aquired. Otherwise it would assume that they have no cards except the default deck that you start the game. I am sure that I could have disabled the user account control to stop the annoying popups to log in as administrator. I reformatted and went back to XP because I figured that Microsoft needs to make some allowances to set whether the program can run as administrator without having to constantly logging in as administrator and still keep UAC active.

I did not want to try Impossible Creatures or Starcraft to see if I had to login as administrator all the time just to play with all my information currently correct.

It was also interesting on Never Winter Nights 2, the rating that was in the game folder was M and yet on the box it is T.
March 2, 2007 4:00:30 PM

I understand all the behind the scenes changes to Vista very well, and even with them moving the Drivers off the kernel layer (one of the biggest changes), it is still essentially an incremental release. At its core, it remains very similar to XP, and the differences are nowhere near as stark for the home user as they were for the previous generation.

That being said, the examples you provided are just more reasons why At the present, Vista is a horrible gaming platform.
March 2, 2007 5:20:14 PM

Very good comment about the 98-XP transition; at least that time MS had the legitimate excuse of completely changing the code base, which is certainly not the case here.
March 2, 2007 5:33:05 PM

Quote:
:( 
I'm tired of this. The PS3 crap, the comic movie garbage, and now Vista, which we all knew would have these problems? Dig new dirt, guys. You're stuck in a hole. :p 

Hmm...all those articles may be mine. I'll work harder!

Quote:
so I was forced to play "Doom 3" in its retail state

Excuse me RobWright, but when was that copy of Doom 3 obtained? All the retail copies available today "should" be patched up to the latest patch, and I doubt that id are still making patches for Doom 3.
Our copy of Doom 3 is the original retail version from when it first came out, so there was a patch available.

Quote:
Eventually they want Vista to run games right off the disc with the hard drive being used as a scratch disc

Say that again???
Is this a console we're talking about or a computer?

Microsoft would like it to be a console. They told Rob and I that several times during our visit with them last year at E3. They want to lower the barrier that exists to the average person buying a PC game, getting it installed and configured, possibly upgrading drivers and patching, and then actually playing the game. In short, they want more people playing PC games which means more PC game sales which means more developers develop for PC.

Quote:
How can they bash Vista so much and still let Vista adverts on their site???

Thankfully sales and editorial are very separate entities at most news organizations. As far as bashing Vista, that was not my intention. I believe Vista will work out the kinks and come out strong with DX10, but as of today, I cannot recommend gamers upgrading. Even if Vista was as good as XP, why would you spend a couple hundred dollars to get zero improvement?

Quote:
The reason I am supposrrting Microsoft and Games For Windows 'blindly' is because they seem to be doing more to promote PC Gaming than has ever been done before and as a lifelong Gamer I think this is huge (I'd take my PC over my PS3/360/Wii any day of the week). Sure Microsoft is in it for the money, but if games like Supreme Commander are the result I'm cool. No one else is stepping up to the plate so I'm following Microsoft.

I have to agree with this. Because Microsoft wants Games for Windows to be a console, they are spending a lot of money on it as a gaming platform.

Good discussion, gents.
March 2, 2007 5:56:44 PM

Quote:
I believe the immature drivers are a result of Microsoft's constant Vista revisions and hesitance to provide finalized material to Nvidia and ATI, nothing more. The drivers will be mature soon enough, possibly May'ish when ATI's new DX10 cards come out?


You sum up a lot of the problems right here, and this issue is clearly MS's fault. With this statement you contradict yourself in two ways:
1: Earlier you said driver issues were the fault of nVidia, ATI, and Creative, etc - but this statement puts the blame on MS for not enabling them to do their jobs properly.2: You say MS "seem to be doing more to promote PC Gaming than has ever been done before", but the fact that the above is true, and that MS knew there would be numerous driver issues and released Vista prematurely due to fear of OS X getting too popular with non-gamers belies that statement.

Quote:
Current Gaming with current games is a worse experience on Vista, why wouldn't it be? The games were not written for it so why would there be an improvement? There is also a clear loss of performance in most games; due to Vista overhead, or immature drivers??? who knows?
Since Vista is the next generation Windows, and designed with being used as a gaming platform in mind, that the games were not written for it is irrelevant. This is supposed to be an improvement on the system the games were written for. A lot of the issues do seem to be driver issues, but that goes back to the statements above.

Quote:
The issues of Vista are in essence 'backwards compatibility' issues,; similar to the Xbox 360 and PS3 have been facing, and is similar to the other Windows launches, the difference being 'Compatibility Mode' and the free Virtual PC 2007 you can add to Vista.
PCs are a whole different animal than consoles, and because of their much higher degree of flexibility, we should not expect to see this many compatibility issues. And using the console example, PS2 played many PS1 games better than the PS1 itself.

The issues with gaming in Vista seem to be on-par if not more than there were with the XP release, but there is one major difference: the XP Release was a HUGE change fro the previous generation (Win98), and problems were to be expected. Given the fact that Vista is much closer to an incremental release of XP than a revolutionary change, and that they should have learned something from the XP launch (they apparently didn't, or more likely, don't care), we should NOT be seeing the level of issues that we are. XP also has compatibility mode by the way, it is about 95% useless if you've ever tried it.

There is no evidence one way or another that Nvdiai/ATI/etc. had, or did not have sufficient access to develope working drivers for Vista prior to it's launch, it's all speculation. I'd expect that upon it's release they all had the tools they needed to make it happen, and now it's just a l;earning curve for them. At this point each hardware manufactuere is essentially responsible for their own developement, thus they get the blame, Microsoft's only fault is in it's delays.

I've installed a couple hundred games on Vista that work fine. The compatibility rate (for me) has been better than XP vs. 98 ever was. All compatibility complaints stem from individuals not being able to get theri games run which is essentially a failure of drivers and manufactueres having available updates for their games...


Microsoft is driving the future of gaming not the past. Making sure year old games (Oblivion for example) that have already brought in the majority of their revenues continue to function is only a relevant for those not staying current in the gaming world. Those folks should stay with XP until they, and the developers are ready and comfortable with Vista.

The release of Vista will drive hardware manufactueres to offer support, and this happens post release, not prelease as so many expect.
March 2, 2007 6:29:28 PM

Quote:
The release of Vista will drive hardware manufactueres to offer support, and this happens post release, not prelease as so many expect.


That just doesn't make any sense. In the scenario you are outlining, any new software release, especially OS releases, would be useless for months after release until HW manufacturers caught up by offering support post release. That would be business suicide.
March 2, 2007 6:50:22 PM

Quote:

Thankfully sales and editorial are very separate entities at most news organizations. As far as bashing Vista, that was not my intention. I believe Vista will work out the kinks and come out strong with DX10, but as of today, I cannot recommend gamers upgrading. Even if Vista was as good as XP, why would you spend a couple hundred dollars to get zero improvement?

[


ROFLMAO, thats just the OS! At last count, I have about 35 PAID FOR software packages that I used on a regular basis. I have scanners, printers, USB devices that all need drivers. At last count, I needed about $700 or more before I could upgrade my rig to Vista to acheive equivalent functionality with LESS performance.

I've looked over , for example, extremetech's list of "Why Vista wont suck" (http://www.extremetech.com/slideshow/0,1206,l=172302&s=...),
and there is NOTHING there that I want.

I can patch my own OS, I don't need flash to speed things up, I dont need a new cool user interface, I can defrag my own drives, I dont need a new calendar, or media player, or integrated backup or ANY of that crap! Vista has NOTHING to offer me that is worthy of the expense to upgrade. NOTHING.

This is an MS cluster **** of the highest order. Their percieved need to control the digital data path with both HW and SW so that they can foist even more (already broken) DRM on us is the sole purpose for this OS.

I upgraded to Windows XP because it offered some very legitimate improvements over Windows98. WindowsXP has crashed less on me in the last two years than Windows98 did in any given month that I ran it.

I only lost a couple of devices and sw programs during that upgrade. This time, I stand to lose a LOT more.
March 2, 2007 10:53:50 PM

Quote:

ROFLMAO, thats just the OS! At last count, I have about 35 PAID FOR software packages that I used on a regular basis. I have scanners, printers, USB devices that all need drivers. At last count, I needed about $700 or more before I could upgrade my rig to Vista to acheive equivalent functionality with LESS performance.

I've looked over , for example, extremetech's list of "Why Vista wont suck" (http://www.extremetech.com/slideshow/0,1206,l=172302&s=...),
and there is NOTHING there that I want.

I can patch my own OS, I don't need flash to speed things up, I dont need a new cool user interface, I can defrag my own drives, I dont need a new calendar, or media player, or integrated backup or ANY of that crap! Vista has NOTHING to offer me that is worthy of the expense to upgrade. NOTHING.


Amen to that...

funny how people forget there was more then just a 98/xp transition
i dont mean to quibble but it was a 98 to 2k to xp transition (i didnt add ME on purpose *still have nightmares of my time spent on ME*)

and come to think of it XP offers me Nothing over 2k. in fact i was given a copy of XP (which is the reason why i have it installed) i also have 2k on my original drive, i have been testing XP for 6 months now (to give it a really fair shake) and im about to delete it from my system because it doesnt do anything 2k doesnt do. It doesnt crash less, it doesnt feel any faster, it doesnt have better support for my hardware or software. I've even benchmarked the few games i play, 2K wins a couple of the benchmarks, XP wins a couple, and it's a VERY VERY small margin, just .5 - 2 FPS difference.

Why would i upgrade to Vista? EVERY user here would have been fine using W2K these last 6+ years.

I don't know about you guys but i do NOT want an appliance I want a computer. Making the PC more like Anything other than a PC is plain dumb (My Opinion). IF people want a more user friendly apliance, then make them one. Why make a PC more like a console, if you want a console, go get one. I'm not advocating moving back to DOS to make computers more difficult (wait a minute DOS NEVER crashed durring a game heh). MS is doing for computers what they want to do for computers, make money. Why shouldnt they want to make money though it's there right, but you are ALL supporting them. BTW you could say I am supporting them as well, but I have never purchased a copy of windows.
March 2, 2007 10:54:39 PM

So microsoft is dealing up vista and its not use a full deck of cards that would be right on the cheep and nasty
i have stuck with microsoft since win95 but lately i have been seeing migration to Apple
As far as game play and game avalability is windows a better platform or is Apple
gazza
March 2, 2007 10:57:15 PM

Quote:
So microsoft is dealing up vista and its not use a full deck of cards that would be right on the cheep and nasty
i have stuck with microsoft since win95 but lately i have been seeing migration to Apple
As far as game play and game avalability is windows a better platform or is Apple
gazza

Try Linux. The lesser of 3 evils :twisted:
March 2, 2007 11:07:22 PM

Quote:
Try Linux. The lesser of 3 evils :twisted:


I did that last year in fact - i got ALL my hardware working flawlessly. Open Office is great. The software that folks have written for everything else under the sun also works great. I even got all my windows games working in Linux. One problem, a new game came out that I wanted. So.... guess what

Yes I know about transgaming's efforts, but then I'm paying for support for another program to keep my games working, and I have a copy of windows thats plays em fine for free.....
March 3, 2007 1:17:18 AM

Quote:
So microsoft is dealing up vista and its not use a full deck of cards that would be right on the cheep and nasty
i have stuck with microsoft since win95 but lately i have been seeing migration to Apple
As far as game play and game avalability is windows a better platform or is Apple
gazza


For Gaming, MS is definitely better, because they have DirectX, and the others don't.

For pretty much everything else, Linux is better. The only thing I've had trouble doing in Linux so far thats easy to do in windows is Video editing. I can't find anything close to Premier or Ulead Video studio. Admittedly, for whatever reason, I can never get LiVE or Cinelerra working on my box (usually Ubuntu, also tried FC and a third that I can't remember). Otherwise, I really like Ubuntu and am strongly considering switching to it for pretty much everything.
March 3, 2007 8:12:52 PM

"Windows Vista will replace XP as the default PC OS in the world, there is no question about that..."

Did Windows ME replace Win98? I think NOT. There is a question about Vista replacing XP. Many people might wait for the next OS. I know I am. And there is no way I can see corporate America going for Vista. They will wait too. It seems that every journalist is on-board with this idea that Vista will replace XP no matter what. It's not a given. 98 last through ME and 2000. It wasn't until XP that 98 went away.

There is no killer-app for Vista and no platform can survive without one. Either someone makes a killer-app for Vista or it is stillborn.
March 4, 2007 2:46:35 AM

Quote:
"Windows Vista will replace XP as the default PC OS in the world, there is no question about that..."

Did Windows ME replace Win98? I think NOT. There is a question about Vista replacing XP. Many people might wait for the next OS. I know I am. And there is no way I can see corporate America going for Vista. They will wait too. It seems that every journalist is on-board with this idea that Vista will replace XP no matter what. It's not a given. 98 last through ME and 2000. It wasn't until XP that 98 went away.

There is no killer-app for Vista and no platform can survive without one. Either someone makes a killer-app for Vista or it is stillborn.


I agree, in addition to that, the next MS OS is already scheduled for 2008. At the speed business moves, a lot of them won't migrate before that. Unless something drastic changes, I can't see how Vista will ever gain the ubiquity that 2000 and eventually XP gained. There just isn't currently enough incentive, outside of Dell not offering XP on anything but business PCs, for people to upgrade.
March 4, 2007 3:15:29 AM

Quote:
I agree, in addition to that, the next MS OS is already scheduled for 2008. At the speed business moves, a lot of them won't migrate before that.


Cost effectiveness also plays a part; how many businesses still use computers that aren't capable of running Vista? Not to mention all the staff training as well.

Where I work I use a Comcrap, erm, Compaq PC with a P3 800Mhz, 64Mb (128? can't remember) RAM and a whopping 15Gb hard drive. It runs XP fine; a bit slow at start-up but it does the job, so why would the boss want to change something that works?

But yeah, 1.5-2 years is nothing for a business computer. If you work in a business (office, really) with a 2 year old computer then count yourself lucky!
March 4, 2007 10:07:42 AM

The DirectX 9.0 update that everyone seams to be missing:
(OS Pirates Especially :lol:  )

First and foremost, if you have problems gaming under Windows Vista then download:

directx_feb2007_redist.exe - from microsoft.com


http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&...

================================================

Virtualisation in Vista:

Have people tried disabling VT (Virtualisation) in the BIOS of a PC with Microsoft Windows Vista installed on it, then rebooting ?

Try benchmarking before and after.

This was one of the first things I noticed in the new Task Manager:
- Columns specifically for Virtualisation and Data Execution Prevention.
- Massively reworked Memory columns for Task Manager.

Vista is no-where near as bad as people indicate to me that it is, I've already got a Vista Ultimate retail kit (32 + 64 bit Ultimate), and Vista Home Premium going on a Toshiba laptop. (Core 2 Duo @ 2.16 GHz, 4 MB L2, 2 GB RAM, 200 GB 4200 rpm HDD, GeForce 'Go' 7900 GTX [500/1200 I suspect]).

1680 x 1050 seams to be the sweet spot for the new GUI.

Using the (same as XP) Appearance configuration you can disable fades / slides and various other things (this dates back to Win 98 but has more features listed). ie: You can disable the 'Desktop Windows Manager' to free up some resources.

I'd recommend also creating a 2nd user account for each user that plans to game to free up even more resources. 8) [Some ppl already did this under Win XP and Win 2K just for an edge).

================================================[/b]
March 4, 2007 2:33:56 PM

Quote:
The DirectX 9.0 update that everyone seams to be missing:
(OS Pirates Especially :lol:  )

First and foremost, if you have problems gaming under Windows Vista then download:

directx_feb2007_redist.exe - from microsoft.com


http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&...

================================================

Virtualisation in Vista:

Have people tried disabling VT (Virtualisation) in the BIOS of a PC with Microsoft Windows Vista installed on it, then rebooting ?

Try benchmarking before and after.

This was one of the first things I noticed in the new Task Manager:
- Columns specifically for Virtualisation and Data Execution Prevention.
- Massively reworked Memory columns for Task Manager.

Vista is no-where near as bad as people indicate to me that it is, I've already got a Vista Ultimate retail kit (32 + 64 bit Ultimate), and Vista Home Premium going on a Toshiba laptop. (Core 2 Duo @ 2.16 GHz, 4 MB L2, 2 GB RAM, 200 GB 4200 rpm HDD, GeForce 'Go' 7900 GTX [500/1200 I suspect]).

1680 x 1050 seams to be the sweet spot for the new GUI.

Using the (same as XP) Appearance configuration you can disable fades / slides and various other things (this dates back to Win 98 but has more features listed). ie: You can disable the 'Desktop Windows Manager' to free up some resources.

I'd recommend also creating a 2nd user account for each user that plans to game to free up even more resources. 8) [Some ppl already did this under Win XP and Win 2K just for an edge).

================================================
[/b]
I also want to know about VT. It should help VM-ware a lot.
March 5, 2007 2:09:53 PM

Quote:
Quite True. The whole idea of running PC games directly from the disk is flawed on many levels, and would be a step backwards for gamin, even with ever-increasing disk storage sizes.

I would say so when games like total war taking 2 dvds how would this work without going to a hd format disk. And I don't think many people will add a hd player on a pc and with two formats to chose from no way
March 5, 2007 2:18:19 PM

Well, they could do it the same way Consoles did is with CDs, but it would still be stupid and a step back to do so.

This is actually kind of a big debate lately, as Sony is saying how good an idea it was for them to include Blu-ray in PS3, and MS saying that the larger disks aren't necessary.
March 6, 2007 5:48:27 AM

N64 carts loaded almost instantaneously. They were also horrendously expensive.
March 7, 2007 12:55:47 AM

Your review is deplorable. Your obviously a front of MS to push thier OS down throats of those who don't know any better.

Your review is in-efficient. It doesn't even state that Vista will only use a MAXIMUM of 2 (count 'em) TWO CPUS ONLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Check the EULA.

The Drivers are not the Cause, Ati waited intentionally for the fall of Nvidia with its "only DX10 part on the market". This doesn't even point to the fact that ATI's Hardware (which you are running for this review) is only a DX9.0c part. What, Vista can't handle DX9? Microsuck had YEARS to get this right, it didn't, when the VOLE told people that it would be great, it later then backtracked and said that it would be at LEAST 10% SLOWER AT GAMING THAN XP. That's FACT.

Not only that, the Games for Windows Initiative was started to have a unified platform for games being played on Xbox's and MS PC's ONLY.

OPENGL is the Competing standard to DX10, OF COURSE MS Won't make it work right. IT DOESN"T WANT IT TO. IF it did, DX10 would be DEAD. THEN THERE REALLY WOULDN'T BE A REASON TO UPGRADE TO VISTA AT ALL!!!!
DX10 is what Microsuck is COUNTING on to make people UPGRADE.

OEM's Push a OS into the stream, its up to people weather or not to buy it.
DELL's NOT STUPID, OF COURSE THEY AREN"T PUTTING VISTA ON THIER HIGH END RIGS. POINT > IT DOESN"T PERFORM. Imagine the Support NIGHTMARE for Dell if EVERY user called and asked why thier Dell with the 8800GTX and BLah blah, Doesn't even run their OLD tried and true games to run properly or AT ALL. I have NEVER EVER had a problem with ANY Games getting it to run properly on XP. Even if I did, A Re-Partition and Format always fixed ANY problem. I've to support for OEM's as well as build custom to suit (both AMD and Intel platforms) for over a Decade.

Never EVER has there been such a blatant and out-right DISREGARD of End User Rights of ANY COMPANY I have ever seen before EXCEPT Microsoft. Believe IT!

They are stripping you of everything we (as consumers) have fought for for the last 30 plus years. (Remember Sony and VHS?!?!??!)

They tried the same and failed. Wake up people. The Gestapo is at the door, they are here for you. Will you not speak up?

I sure hope someone else does before you lose out.

Heck, Even the US DOT Mandated that NO COMPUTER SHALL BE UPGRADED TO VISTA, IE7, OR OFFICE 2007. Doesn't that just make you WONDER???!??!?!?!
March 7, 2007 1:09:06 AM

Settle down there sparky...

Everyone knows Vista isn't what was promised, and in your own convoluted way, you even make some decent points in there. You are also wrong or greatly exaggerating on some things.

A little advice, when you have a point to make, try not to come across as so radical and fired up. It makes people just tune out what you have to say.
March 7, 2007 1:23:22 AM

Then you don't know what your talking about at all hergie
March 7, 2007 1:29:56 AM

OH please please do try to point out errors. I beg you. My post is ACCURATE. I came here to shed some truth, obviously, you don't want it. That is called Stupidity.

There's nothing convoluted. Your feeble attempt at discrediting anything in my post shows that I am only posting the truth.

Quick, what did the reviewer use for his CPU on this Review>???

A Core 2 Quad. And his score was a 5.9.

Anything else you would like to bring up?

Or do you just bumble out the first thing that sounds good.
March 7, 2007 1:35:37 AM

Quote:
Then you don't know what your talking about at all hergie


Really? Thats funny. I'm not getting into an e-pissing competition with you. I can guarantee that I DO know what I am talking about. You sound like a religious zealot, bringing the "truth" to us dim-witted slobs.
      • 1 / 3
      • 2
      • 3
      • Newest
!