Save XP! - Page 4

I agree, dx10 is pretty much a passover for most people, there's no reason to try and use it as of now. Anyone with a half a financial sense won't buy Vista, it doesn't actually offer any real improvements over xp. And if you can find one I highly doubt it will be worth the investment with either just the operating system or the operating system and all new hardware and some peripherals. :-p

needless to say there is a LOT of room for improvement... and that can be a positive thing. right?

Just keep on ignoring the truth. You can't compare XP Crysis w/Very-high settings to Vista Crysis DX10 as far as performance goes. And in Vista you CAN run Crysis in DX9 and the performance is the same and has been proven so. Also stop saying stupid $hit like "Anyone with a half a financial sense won't buy Vista". Not everybody owns a 6 year old PC. Believe it or not some people have actually bought computers in the last year and probably got Vista, not XP. Vista is also about the same price or cheaper then the comparable version of XP. Home Premium $110 vs XP MCE $115. Also as far as why use Vista, well if I have to read one more "Why does my XP computer detect my 4GB of RAM as 3.25"...

Dude, we get it. You use Linux. You're Uber leet. You must be seeing as you're among the less 1% of people who actually use Linux for personal computing. Also as far as transfering XP to a new PC that's assuming you just throw your old one in the trash. I actually have a copy of Fedora 8 right next to me. But if you want to get into the finances of it, the extra time I would spend on your self proclaimed 'work arounds' would cost me more then just installing Vista64-which I've yet to have a single app not work on the first try. Hey, good for you that you have so much time that you can spend it work arounds that for things that will just work on either XP or Vista. Think about how much time you spend doing extra work trying to get stuff to work in Linux and then multiply that by the hourly rate of even a minimum wage job and Linux isn't financially worth it. BTW I also received my copy of Vista Ultimate for free (actually I made money off getting it, but thats another topic).

Um, I've put vista on several different computers (though only one at a time with the same disc).

XP is seven years old.
Let it go.
XP isn't going to disappear.
MS is discontinuing the manufacture of new XP CD ROM's
Licencing discontinues Jan 31st 2009.
MS has not given a date when it will stop supporting XP.

If XP is that important to you, buy a few license keys. I'm certain MS will appreciate accepting your money.

Question to ponder.
Were there many people installing Windows 95 on new computers in 2002?

I use Linux (Red Hat and Ubantu ) and Its a great OS for setting up a really protected sever. And you can also do things that you can't do in XP/Vista, for example you can use Linux to Mod the BIOS/Drivers for the 360 and you also have some good security apps for Linux. Let it rest, after all these are all personal views and each view is different so please don't start flaming.

Shadow7037 93: If you're comparing XP DX9 Crysis VS Vista DX9 Cryis, then please post some results show that XP having some real advantage?
This is Vista DX9 from my PC this afternoon.

Run #1- DX9 1920x1080 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 32.615

Compared to all the XP benchmarks I've seen on various sites (including Tom's Hardware), these results are pretty much the same with comparable hardware.

Also I understand why Linux is a great OS, probably even more so then people who've justed tooled around with Ubantu to play games. But what annoys the hell out of me is when there's a discussion about Windows and some moron chimes in "I use Linux and it does everything Windows does and more". Anybody who knows a lick about PCs and the technology industry knows that Linux and Windows are no wheres near the same category. It would be like if two people were debating who makes a better truck, Ford or Chevy, and somebody chimed in "My Civic gets better gas mileage!". If you're going to go around touting the greatness of Linux at least learn enough about it to know when it doesn't even belong in the conversation.

Google to THG:

If vista is so fan-damtastic why are so many downgrading to xp?

Face it, as a "next gen" operating system, it has failed. It has failed to capture the hearts and minds of computer users, it has failed to remain compatible with existing hardware and software, and it has failed to provide substantial reasons for "upgrading." Other than the dubious "Its Direct X 10!"

But if you like it, then have fun.

Why not let those of us who prefer our ass-backward xp pro continue to use a stable, reliable os that we can count on for the foreseeable future?

As far as the downgrading it's mostly hype. I worked at Best Buy with the Geek Squad from the time of Vista's release until this past September. Only a couple of people downgraded to XP and they were all because it was a job requirement that the use XP Pro. Even if they'd bought a XP Home or MCE system the year before they still would of had to change OS. I can only recall 3-5 people who actually did that (at least through us) in the first 10 months after Vista's release, which one would assume would be when the most would occur. Most of the other people who down graded to XP were not people who bought Vista computers then changed, but rather people who first tried to upgrade existing XP PCs to Vista then decided to go back. I think that is where the large number of downgrades come from. A lot of people tried to upgrade 3-6 year old PCs to Vista which just isn't going to work. Not only is the max hardware config for a 4 year PC not enough, but there isn't enough driver support for it.

QFT. You pretty much hit the nail on the head.

i'm seriously done with this post... XP is a good OS overall if you only compare it to other windows releases. And I do hope you "save xp" or at least push for something that doesn't have drm riddled through it like shista.... but it's not worth dealing with the clown. :-p Somebody else's turn.. i'm not coming back to this post. and since i'm not going to return... randomizer seems like he's educated enough, i'll just go ahead and agree with everything he says from now on in this post.. just paste this part in your next posts randomizer...

"I agree, randomizer is well versed on this subject, listen to him." ~nachowarrior

I am only guessing that you're referring to me and possibly my avatar?

Maybe if you take some econ 101 classes you would get the joke that this avatar represents. Nothing I have posted in this thread is to be taken seriously because if any of you are for real you would have realized long before this thread started that XP has a limited life span at best. If you don't believe me look back through the history book to previous OS's

Nothing you can say or do will change this fact. So with that lighten up a bit, and laugh once in awhile... lifes too short for sour pusses. BTW, I did sign up to help save XP... not that it will make any difference.

Your right that's all you need to say. A comment like that pretty much shows exactly what type of intelligence I'm dealing with. Trying to further explain how to use something as revolutionary as Google to get HL2 and Oblivion to work with XBCD would be pointless.

Never admit that to anyone, especially here.

Sorry guy, it has nothing to do with the evil corporation.

I'll let someone else explain it to you.

So if I'd said that I'd worked for a locally owned computer shop as a PC technician I would get the same reaction? I have a feeling it's the corporate names 'Best Buy' and 'Geek Squad' that garner the negative response, not the fact that I've had the experience of working on thousands of Vista computers - which was the point of my mentioning my past work experience.

Vista is so great we have:

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0 [...] 644,00.htm

OOuuch!!

True, but while hardware is improving, software continues to "get ahead" (in a bad way ). If we look at hardware designed for games in particular, the only real time recently where the hardware was well ahead of it's software counterpart was when G80 was released (from my memory at least, which tends to be rather unreliable so there are probably a few other times when this has happened). Oblivion crushed all GPUs until G80, when the tables were turned for over a year. Only recently has G80 been shattered, again by bloated and slow software, eg. Crysis in DX10. Sure Crysis looks stunning, but it it just too demanding for the hardware to keep up. Hardware only a year old is pushed to obsoletion, even in DX9. All this "tacked-on" DX10 code is the real cause of slowdown IMO, if you are intending on making a next-gen game, you need to make sure that you program it well enough so as to be playable on current hardware to a reasonable extent at the very least. Call of Juarez, probably the most extreme example of poorly implemented DX10 code, isn't even next-gen. In fact it's almost last-gen and it still can't be played on current hardware.

Hopefully the hardware manufacturers will get a move on and push some stuff out the door that can really kick ass - soon. One gets tired of refresh-ments, I'm waiting for main course. I doubt my finances will hold out that long though, my X1950 pro is getting too old. 12 months old and it's got one foot in ebay already.

Did either one of you even read those articles? or did you spend all your time trying to figure out which smilies looked the best? 2 of the articles do not say a SINGLE negative thing about Vista, if anything 1 is a positive (and may indicate another positive to the other). The other two are a year old. One of these actually has valid points though it only focuses on one area - which is also a problem on XP though not to as much of an extent. The other is filled with misinformation, if not lies (it's hard to say since it was released before Vista so maybe the author just didn't know any better. He was kind enough to include 2 links to articles refutting his claims). I'll save you guys the time of having to actually read these articles:

[url] http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0 [...] 644,00.htm[/url]
This is an article about NEC offering XP to customers who still want it. Yes there are still people who want XP (primarily in the business sector which NEC mostly caters to). Here's a quote describing why they want XP still:

It should be no shock that businesses do not live on the bleeding edge of technology. Many are still using 2000, not XP because from a business standpoint XP offers nothing over 2000. As with everthing in business it's about cost. And it's not the cost of Vista that is holding them back, it's the cost of change. Many large companies could use Linux which is free, but the cost of changing platforms for an entire company is more expensive then the savings. This article does not mention a single negative to Vista that is holding people back from using it. Vista/DX10 could turn out to be the greatest video game/music/graphics platform ever created (I'm not saying it will or won't) and it wouldn't mean squat to the business sector. Actually many companies still prefer 2000 in part because it's not as good on all those fun things as is XP.

http://apcmag.com/7960/microsoft_r [...] nel_in_SP1
Was this link a mistake? Microsoft updating Vista's kernel to better work with Server 2008 is some how a bad thing? Stability is not an issue, in fact it's improved if anything and that's with beta. Vista working seemlessly with WS 2008 would mean good things in relation to the above article for MS and Vista. Again, did you really mean to include this link?

http://apcmag.com/5049/10_reasons_not_to_get_vista
Besides the age of this article and the links to rebuttals the author attached here's where the author is wrong on 8 out of the 10 reasons.
1.You don't actually need it - Well no, but there's a lot of things people don't need. And if your new PC comes with Vista why do you need to pay extra to downgrade? (I didn't consider this one wrong since it is technically correct).
2.Cost $$ - Vista cost the same as XP (in the US at least). And new PCs come with Vista, not XP so in that case XP, or any other OS, would be the additional cost.
3.3. On that note, it's outrageously overpriced - Isn't this the same as 2? I guess if you buy it in Australia, but as one of the rebuttal articles points out 95% of Vista owner will get it for free.
4.Upgrading hardware - If your hardware is too old for Vista use XP. But if you buy/build a new PC current hardware is plenty enough for Vista.
5.Driver support - If you're having driver issues with Vista, then your hardware is too old and you should either buy new hardware or us XP. New hardware is all Vista compatible. The specific drivers he mentions work just fine with Vista.
6.Applications that don't work - Same as with drivers. The programs he lists all work. New software will work with Vista. If you're using old software either upgrade or use XP.
7.It's a big fat target - Vista is more secure then XP. Some people even complain about it.
8.UAC - Turn it off. Turning off UAC does not disable any security features. It just takes away the idiot proofing.
9.DRM - This is the one real issue. See below.
10.The draconian license - Did they take WPA out of XP? The wording of the EULA may be different (I haven't read it) but there's nothing new here. XP has the same issue. This is only a reason not to use Vista if you are still running 98/ME.
I'm not saying the author has necessarily lied since this article was posted before Vista was released and he may have never used it before writing this. But a year later, try to come up with something a little more relavent.


http://apcmag.com/5348/vista_defective_by_design
Yup DRM sucks. But it doesn't really affect me as far as Vista goes. I've been able to rip all my CDs and copy them to other devices. The only time DRM has really been and issue for me has been with games like Bioshock where I can't use my CD-ROM emulation software. I may be wrong but is this any different in XP? I'll be honest, I haven't spent much time concerning myself with DRM issues, but where is it so bad in Vista but not an issue in XP or anywhere else? This article is a year old also. Has nobody cared enough to write something a little more recent?


I'm not here to tout Vista as the end all be all OS. I'm not telling people which OS to use or not to use. Frankly I don't care. Vista works great for me, but I'll be using Windows 7 as soon as it's released unless it's a complete disaster - which I highly doubt. What I immensly dislike is all the mis-information and lies. If your too stupid to know better and the best you can do is "haha you worked for Best Buy", well that's all I need to know.

SH*TSTORM INCOMING

people keep on saying that, but nobody has anything to say. Kind of like "Vista Sucks..."? Where's the beef?

Once again I pretty much agree. The subtle difference is not worth the performance hit. Howeve Crysis is the first real attempt at a full DX10 game. It won't take long for performance and visual improvements to increase. The fact that there is a difference shows that there's something there to build on. There are a more improvements which really can't be seen because of poor performance. Take the explosions. In DX10 they can look incredibly real - but usually they cause massive slow downs so the effect is lost. DX9 still looks great and runs better, but once the performance gets there for DX10 it won't even be close.

How about DRM DRM DRM. Enough said. If you like it, then use it. It offers me nothing but bloat. I did use RC1 and it ran fine, the little I used it. I don't buy OEM PCs so I don't have to worry about them foisting Vista on me. Since it offers nothing at all over XP and does have plenty of negatives, then I choose not to use it. If you really want to understand Vista then see this video, it explains it all in great detail. Make sure you watch it to the end.

Important Vista Information