overclockers.com's take on Vista

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: stash

akin to Win2k between the 98se to XP jump

I'd hardly call Windows 2000 a footnote. It was never really intended to be a consumer OS, but in the server and business spaces, it was revolutionary compared to NT4. I don't think you can call the product that introduced Active Directory a footnote.

Yeah that's fair. TBH, I was referring to more of the mainstream OS desktop user area. I still consider Win2k to be pretty much NT5. Though the detestable WinME pretty much pushed a previously unthinkable % of users to the NT platform. For those that went from 9x/Me to 2k (a good move), 2k was a short stop before XP got rolling.

Active Directory means pretty much zilch for a home user/gamer/generic user. Though it was a critical step forward for Microsoft as a whole.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Canterwood

Originally posted by: Mem
You want some honest feedback on Vista go here. .

To be honest Mem, OCUK is the last place I would go for accurate and honest opinion on anything.

There seems to be a lot of so called experts there who talk a load of BS most of the time.

if you really want some honest feedback .. go ...

... nowhere
:Q

STAY here ... we know the truth about Vista ... is it no longer "out there "

Vista is a better OS than XP
... XP is SO primitive in comparison ... and eventually everyone will know.

lol okay then.

Vista will be a footnote, akin to Win2k between the 98se to XP jump. I admire Microsoft's ambition with the project, but let's be honest, Vista is far from a screaming success story. And to be fair, it's far from a total failure either.

XP is not 'SO primitive'. Besides DX10 gaming, you can do pretty much anything you can do in Vista with XP, provided you know what the hell you're doing in the first place.

Bottom line : if you need a feature that's exclusive to Vista, or are just building a new box and want the longest OS support platform you can currently get, grab Vista64. If you already have a copy of XP, have older hardware, etc, there's nothing wrong with sticking with something that works really well already.

how much experience do you personally have with Vista?

... and you can pretty much do in Win2K what you can do in XP ... so what?
-even win98SE still works for lots of folks

Do you like the past? Do you like tweaking your OS so it will be "like" something better? Vista is a big step up over XP .. let's just mention 'Gaming' and 'security' for starters
:roll:

 

[Canterwood]

AFAIK, and correct me if wrong, but XP SP1 enabled PAE as well and you could use all 4GB of ram.

Sadly some manufacturers didn't write drivers that could handle this (Nvidia, Creative) and could cause BSOD.

Something to do with memory addressing, etc etc.

In SP2 they imposed the limit so that badly written drivers didn't impact the user experience.

It would appear to be the same in Vista 32bit, but maybe with the WHQL testing they could have ensured better drivers were written that didn't cause the problems of old and enable the OS to use 4gb of ram.

 

[Canterwood]

Originally posted by: apoppin
Vista is a big step up over XP .. let's just mention 'Gaming' and 'security' for starters
:roll:

At this point in time, I wouldn't say gaming was a big step up over XP.

I've yet to see a DX10 title that doesn't look as good or play better in DX9 mode.

Maybe later this year we will see some better DX10 games, but as it stands now, XP is as good if not better for gaming than Vista.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Canterwood

Originally posted by: apoppin
Vista is a big step up over XP .. let's just mention 'Gaming' and 'security' for starters
:roll:

At this point in time, I wouldn't say gaming was a big step up over XP.

I've yet to see a DX10 title that doesn't look as good or play better in DX9 mode.

Maybe later this year we will see some better DX10 games, but as it stands now, XP is as good if not better for gaming than Vista.

Try Hellgate: London completely Maxed [extreme shaders] in the DX10 pathway and make sure it is 4xAA/16xAF ... it *blows away* DX9
-just make sure you have the very latest patch

Crysis DX10 'very hi' blows away DX9's best

Same with Lost Planet after the Patch

CoJ runs and looks great on my rig in DX10 ... not so "pretty " in DX9

more examples include BioShock - but "less so" ... and they all run OK except for Crysis, which imo isn't quite "finished" yet.

are you keeping up?

 

[Cl1ckm3]

hard to tweak something thats already alot more tweaked out of box than XP was.
for instance, my internet was alot faster after going to vista, even after i used those internet tweak tools on XP. infact that was the very first thing i noticed when i started useing vista.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: soonerproud
Here is a gem of a quote from this knucklehead.

This is not terribly appealing, especially since the version of Vista being used 95% of the time can't use any more RAM than XP, roughly 3.25GB. That means 64-bit Vista is my only real option, and we know that's as neglected as the crazy aunt in the attic.

First off, this guy who considers himself an "expert" has obviously not ever heard of PAE .(Physical Address Extension) If you decide to enable PAE, Vista 32 bit will use all of your RAM. So you can use all 4 Gigs on a 32 bit system if needed.

No, AFAIK, you cannot use all 4 gigs of memory on Vista32. It breaks the driver model, if you have >4GB addresses being thrown around in the driver stack. Bsobel probably can comment more on this.

Originally posted by: soonerproud
Second, most people do not need more than 2 Gigs of RAM. Unless you are a gamer, heavy multitasker or you use memory intensive programs, 2 Gigs is more than enough and will be for at least the next year or two.

Except for the fact that Vista itself likes to eat a gig or two of memory.

Originally posted by: soonerproud
Third, Vista 64 bit is hardly as neglected as the crazy aunt in the attic. Support for 64 bit Vista is actually very good and most people would not be able to tell the difference between the two if they were running them side by side. I have set up several computers with 64 bit Vista for people, and so far they have handled everything thrown at them. This guy is a complete loon for even suggesting that 64 bit Vista is not an option or even implying that it will lead to a bad experience.

I think that he's referring to the driver situation with Vista64. Which is still a problem for many current hardware devices, unless they are magically blessed with out-of-the-box support.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
No, AFAIK, you cannot use all 4 gigs of memory on Vista32. It breaks the driver model, if you have >4GB addresses being thrown around in the driver stack. Bsobel probably can comment more on this.

Yeah, Nothingman has already explained this to me in detail. I was going off my understanding of it on Linux which is where I have actually seen it used. The other two points still apply.

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Except for the fact that Vista itself likes to eat a gig or two of memory.

Do we have to go over this again or do I have to quote my Busting Vista Myths post? Vista gladly frees up the RAM when you need it so this is not really the issue you and others try to make this out to be. Ubuntu plans to add this very same type of memory management to Hardy Heron from what I have read. So are you going to make the same claim about it too when that happens?

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
I think that he's referring to the driver situation with Vista64. Which is still a problem for many current hardware devices, unless they are magically blessed with out-of-the-box support.

Not if we are talking about 95% of the hardware made in the last year. One of the things a company has to do to get it's drivers WHQL certified is provide 64 bit drivers equal to 32 bit. This is only an issue on old hardware, and anyone with half a brain would not recommend Vista on old hardware. The fact that so many on this very forum are running Vista 64 bit with no problems whatsoever is proof that this guy is off his rocker.

 

[Mem]

I think that he's referring to the driver situation with Vista64. Which is still a problem for many current hardware devices, unless they are magically blessed with out-of-the-box support.

I find the driver situation with Vista x64 excellent for my hardware, has drivers for odd things like Winfast DTV USB 2.0 Tuner,ColorVision Spyder2Express monitor USB Calibration sensor,Trust USB Bluetooth to name a few.



Btw its not a question of Vista x64 or even XP x64 for that matter being the problem,its a matter of the hardware companies in question being lazy with their driver support for operating systems and to THEIR CUSTOMERS,even Vista x64 is over a year old now so companies really have no excuses to have drivers ready,if company xx can have drivers ready why can't company xxxx ,you know the answer to that one.

 

[Canterwood]

Originally posted by: apoppin
Try Hellgate: London completely Maxed [extreme shaders] in the DX10 pathway and make sure it is 4xAA/16xAF ... it *blows away* DX9
-just make sure you have the very latest patch

Crysis DX10 'very hi' blows away DX9's best

Hahaha. Not according to folks I've spoken to who are running it in Vista.
There's plenty of sites also that say when running the DX9 high settings patch there's really very little difference except in better framerates in DX9.

Same with Lost Planet after the Patch

CoJ runs and looks great on my rig in DX10 ... not so "pretty " in DX9

more examples include BioShock - but "less so" ... and they all run OK except for Crysis, which imo isn't quite "finished" yet.

The fact that todays hardware can't even run DX10 at decent framerates, and the little difference seen between DX9 and 10 in the latest games, shows that DX10 is still something for the future.

are you keeping up?

Yes. And I'm underwhelmed.
Which is why even though I have a DX10 capable card and a copy of Vista to hand, I'm sticking with DX9 for now.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: Canterwood

Originally posted by: apoppin
Try Hellgate: London completely Maxed [extreme shaders] in the DX10 pathway and make sure it is 4xAA/16xAF ... it *blows away* DX9
-just make sure you have the very latest patch

Crysis DX10 'very hi' blows away DX9's best

Hahaha. Not according to folks I've spoken to who are running it in Vista.
There's plenty of sites also that say when running the DX9 high settings patch there's really very little difference except in better framerates in DX9.

Same with Lost Planet after the Patch

CoJ runs and looks great on my rig in DX10 ... not so "pretty " in DX9

more examples include BioShock - but "less so" ... and they all run OK except for Crysis, which imo isn't quite "finished" yet.

The fact that todays hardware can't even run DX10 at decent framerates, and the little difference seen between DX9 and 10 in the latest games, shows that DX10 is still something for the future.

are you keeping up?

Yes. And I'm underwhelmed.
Which is why even though I have a DX10 capable card and a copy of Vista to hand, I'm sticking with DX9 for now.

As I keep stating DX technology and hardware(ie video cards) will keep on improving and moving forwards,we all know especially with graphics hardware ,improvements don't take long,you can't really blame Vista for DX10 ,its down to the game software companies and video hardware companies to make the most use of DX technology,Vista has the building blocks or foundation with DX10,end of the day gamers are in the minority on any OS ie 2K,XP,Vista etc...you'll probably find 95% of people that own Vista did not buy it for DX10.

As for DX9 performance ,well if you want to stay on DX9 forever thats fine,personally I'm looking forward to DX10,11 etc and sooner XP is dumped the better,we need to move forward.

Consider how well those DX9 games would run on XP when it was first released?..Not that well ,software and hardware need to catchup up with each another like it has always been.

 

[Canterwood]

Originally posted by: Mem
As I keep stating DX technology and hardware(ie video cards) will keep on improving and moving forwards

Thats not the issue though. We all know that.
The issue is with todays technology, which isn't up to the task of running DX10 at decent framerates. At least not without the expense of dual graphics cards.

you can't really blame Vista for DX10

I never have.

its down to the game software companies and video hardware companies to make the most use of DX technology

Exactly my point. Its just at the moment there's not good enough hardware or games.

As for DX9 performance ,well if you want to stay on DX9 forever thats fine

I've never said that.

I will move to DX10 when the hardware is good enough to run at acceptable framerates.

At this point in time my 8800GT isn't good enough for it, but will run DX9 very well without that much of a difference in quality when compared to todays DX10 games.


I think we've gone far enough off topic to be moved to video and graphics!













[/quote]

 

[Brazen]

From the article:

Some might say, "Do they give some hints about the biggest sort of bloat: the OS?" Well, yes, that's where they really get brazen:

Say what now?

 

[Nothinman]

I still consider Win2k to be pretty much NT5.

That's good because that's the version number just like XP is NT 5.1 and Vista is NT 6.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Canterwood

Originally posted by: apoppin
Try Hellgate: London completely Maxed [extreme shaders] in the DX10 pathway and make sure it is 4xAA/16xAF ... it *blows away* DX9
-just make sure you have the very latest patch

Crysis DX10 'very hi' blows away DX9's best

Hahaha. Not according to folks I've spoken to who are running it in Vista.
There's plenty of sites also that say when running the DX9 high settings patch there's really very little difference except in better framerates in DX9.

i have first hand evidence ... you are quoting "other people" with lesser rigs that don't like "sour grapes". There is a HUGE difference between DX9 and 10!

Same with Lost Planet after the Patch

CoJ runs and looks great on my rig in DX10 ... not so "pretty " in DX9

more examples include BioShock - but "less so" ... and they all run OK except for Crysis, which imo isn't quite "finished" yet.

The fact that todays hardware can't even run DX10 at decent framerates, and the little difference seen between DX9 and 10 in the latest games, shows that DX10 is still something for the future.

are you keeping up?

Yes. And I'm underwhelmed.
Which is why even though I have a DX10 capable card and a copy of Vista to hand, I'm sticking with DX9 for now.

and i AM impressed ... perhaps something is wrong with your rig or you are trying to play at 19x12 with a single GPU
-have you even *tried* Vista or are you "chicken"



:laugh:

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: Canterwood

Originally posted by: Mem
As I keep stating DX technology and hardware(ie video cards) will keep on improving and moving forwards

Thats not the issue though. We all know that.
The issue is with todays technology, which isn't up to the task of running DX10 at decent framerates. At least not without the expense of dual graphics cards.

you can't really blame Vista for DX10

I never have.

its down to the game software companies and video hardware companies to make the most use of DX technology

Exactly my point. Its just at the moment there's not good enough hardware or games.

As for DX9 performance ,well if you want to stay on DX9 forever thats fine

I've never said that.

I will move to DX10 when the hardware is good enough to run at acceptable framerates.

At this point in time my 8800GT isn't good enough for it, but will run DX9 very well without that much of a difference in quality when compared to todays DX10 games.


I think we've gone far enough off topic to be moved to video and graphics!

[/quote]

Todays technology is good enough,heard of SLI,heard of game menu called options?...if you want to run with all options on max with new games then you got to pay for it,it has always been the case and will continue to do so,single video cards you have to expect to make some sacrifices with new games.

I will move to DX10 when the hardware is good enough to run at acceptable framerates.

DX10 or Vista,I moved to Vista without worring about DX10,as a gamer I'm quite happy to play in DX9 mode for now,until I feel the need to upgrade my humble 7800gt card(regardless of DX10).

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Mem

Originally posted by: Canterwood

Originally posted by: apoppin
Try Hellgate: London completely Maxed [extreme shaders] in the DX10 pathway and make sure it is 4xAA/16xAF ... it *blows away* DX9
-just make sure you have the very latest patch

Crysis DX10 'very hi' blows away DX9's best

Hahaha. Not according to folks I've spoken to who are running it in Vista.
There's plenty of sites also that say when running the DX9 high settings patch there's really very little difference except in better framerates in DX9.

Same with Lost Planet after the Patch

CoJ runs and looks great on my rig in DX10 ... not so "pretty " in DX9

more examples include BioShock - but "less so" ... and they all run OK except for Crysis, which imo isn't quite "finished" yet.

The fact that todays hardware can't even run DX10 at decent framerates, and the little difference seen between DX9 and 10 in the latest games, shows that DX10 is still something for the future.

are you keeping up?

Yes. And I'm underwhelmed.
Which is why even though I have a DX10 capable card and a copy of Vista to hand, I'm sticking with DX9 for now.

As I keep stating DX technology and hardware(ie video cards) will keep on improving and moving forwards,we all know especially with graphics hardware ,improvements don't take long,you can't really blame Vista for DX10 ,its down to the game software companies and video hardware companies to make the most use of DX technology,Vista has the building blocks or foundation with DX10,end of the day gamers are in the minority on any OS ie 2K,XP,Vista etc...you'll probably find 95% of people that own Vista did not buy it for DX10.

As for DX9 performance ,well if you want to stay on DX9 forever thats fine,personally I'm looking forward to DX10,11 etc and sooner XP is dumped the better,we need to move forward.

Consider how well those DX9 games would run on XP when it was first released?..Not that well ,software and hardware need to catchup up with each another like it has always been.

Well, like you said, DX10 technology and games are moving forward. It's not that Vista is bad, it's Vista have bunch of new technology that's waiting for the rest of the tech world to catch up on. Right now, unless you are enthusiasts who runs the latest and the greatest, Vista doesn't offer you much benefit, sometime give you some problem because most people still run apps, games as well as hardwares that's few years old. In a couple of years, when more people run newer games/app, better hardware, that's when vista will benefit more people. That's the same with every new OS release, and there is no need to have a war over which camp is smarter or right in using one OS or the other.

 

[Canterwood]

Originally posted by: Mem
Todays technology is good enough,heard of SLI,heard of game menu called options?...if you want to run with all options on max with new games then you got to pay for it,it has always been the case and will continue to do so,single video cards you have to expect to make some sacrifices with new games.

I'll just quote myself from a previous post above.

Originally posted by: Canterwood
The issue is with todays technology, which isn't up to the task of running DX10 at decent framerates. At least not without the expense of dual graphics cards.

DX10 or Vista,I moved to Vista without worring about DX10,as a gamer I'm quite happy to play in DX9 mode for now

Yes, so am I.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: Canterwood

Originally posted by: Mem
Todays technology is good enough,heard of SLI,heard of game menu called options?...if you want to run with all options on max with new games then you got to pay for it,it has always been the case and will continue to do so,single video cards you have to expect to make some sacrifices with new games.

I'll just quote myself from a previous post above.

Originally posted by: Canterwood
The issue is with todays technology, which isn't up to the task of running DX10 at decent framerates. At least not without the expense of dual graphics cards.

DX10 or Vista,I moved to Vista without worring about DX10,as a gamer I'm quite happy to play in DX9 mode for now

Yes, so am I.

I should say there are a few DX10 single video cards that can run DX10 games fine with decent FPS ,but then it all depends on the game and res,settings etc.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: rchiu

As I keep stating DX technology and hardware(ie video cards) will keep on improving and moving forwards,we all know especially with graphics hardware ,improvements don't take long,you can't really blame Vista for DX10 ,its down to the game software companies and video hardware companies to make the most use of DX technology,Vista has the building blocks or foundation with DX10,end of the day gamers are in the minority on any OS ie 2K,XP,Vista etc...you'll probably find 95% of people that own Vista did not buy it for DX10.

As for DX9 performance ,well if you want to stay on DX9 forever thats fine,personally I'm looking forward to DX10,11 etc and sooner XP is dumped the better,we need to move forward.

Consider how well those DX9 games would run on XP when it was first released?..Not that well ,software and hardware need to catchup up with each another like it has always been.

What you and Canterwood can't seem to grasp, is that it HAS happened ... DX10 games look GREAT and NOW play OK on $200 midrange graphics cards [think 9600GT/HD3870/8800GT]

if you rig is NOT capable, too bad ... i feel for you ... but don't be "sour grapesing" the REST of us who know better. i went to Crossfire [for $480 total in 2900xt/2900Pro] so i could get GREAT DX10 games with good details at 16x10

the rest of you ARE missing out
-and don't want to hear it

too bad

truth hurts if you are oversensitive


Your arguments were valid last Summer ... catch up please
:clock:

 

[Canterwood]

Originally posted by: apoppin
What you and Canterwood can't seem to grasp, is that it HAS happened ... DX10 games look GREAT and NOW play OK on $200 midrange graphics cards [think 9600GT/HD3870/8800GT]

Depends on what kind of framerates you deem as 'OK'

if you rig is NOT capable, too bad ... i feel for you ... but don't be "sour grapesing" the REST of us who know better. i went to Crossfire [for $480 total in 2900xt/2900Pro] so i could get GREAT DX10 games with good details at 16x10

Lol. :laugh: There's no sour grapes(ing ) I can assure you.
But I'm not prepared to spend twice as much for two graphics cards just to get DX10 games running with good frames.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Canterwood

Originally posted by: apoppin
What you and Canterwood can't seem to grasp, is that it HAS happened ... DX10 games look GREAT and NOW play OK on $200 midrange graphics cards [think 9600GT/HD3870/8800GT]

Depends on what kind of framerates you deem as 'OK'

if you rig is NOT capable, too bad ... i feel for you ... but don't be "sour grapesing" the REST of us who know better. i went to Crossfire [for $480 total in 2900xt/2900Pro] so i could get GREAT DX10 games with good details at 16x10

Lol. :laugh: There's no sour grapes(ing ) I can assure you.
But I'm not prepared to spend twice as much for two graphics cards just to get DX10 games running with good frames.

then don't spread FUD because you are missing out and may be too cheap to upgrade so as to appreciate the very noticeable DX10 improvement in graphics.

:roll:

 

[Canterwood]

Originally posted by: apoppin
then don't spread FUD because you are missing out and may be too cheap to upgrade so as to appreciate the very noticeable DX10 improvement in graphics.

:roll:

I'm not spreading any FUD, because my whole point in the first place was that DX9 games ran better than DX10 games without much in the way of noticable visual difference in eye candy.

I still stand by that.

And yes (even though I could if I really really wanted), I am too cheap to bother going to SLI, as I have far better things to spend my money on.

Got that. Good! :laugh:

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: Canterwood

Originally posted by: apoppin
then don't spread FUD because you are missing out and may be too cheap to upgrade so as to appreciate the very noticeable DX10 improvement in graphics.

:roll:

I'm not spreading any FUD, because my whole point in the first place was that DX9 games ran better than DX10 games without much in the way of noticable visual difference in eye candy.

I still stand by that.

And yes (even though I could if I really really wanted), I am too cheap to bother going to SLI, as I have far better things to spend my money on.

Got that. Good! :laugh:

:thumbsup:

I understand that there are some instances a high end single dx10 card may render acceptable frames. However, every benchmark published in the last three months shows that in order to get decent frame rates on DX10, you need two higher end SLI cards in order to do so. I am not going to spend double the money for some minor improvements in eye candy.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: Canterwood

Originally posted by: apoppin
then don't spread FUD because you are missing out and may be too cheap to upgrade so as to appreciate the very noticeable DX10 improvement in graphics.

:roll:

I'm not spreading any FUD, because my whole point in the first place was that DX9 games ran better than DX10 games without much in the way of noticable visual difference in eye candy.

I still stand by that.

And yes (even though I could if I really really wanted), I am too cheap to bother going to SLI, as I have far better things to spend my money on.

Got that. Good! :laugh:

:thumbsup:

I understand that there are some instances a high end single dx10 card may render acceptable frames. However, every benchmark published in the last three months shows that in order to get decent frame rates on DX10, you need two higher end SLI cards in order to do so. I am not going to spend double the money for some minor improvements in eye candy.

it's called SOUR GRAPES

when *you* decide to upgade THEN will be "worth it" ?
-until then the rest of us should live with you in the Stone Age in a "fool's DX9 paradise"?


i think not

it is only "minor" to you because you don't have it and you are minimizing it because you didn't upgrade for your own reasons

it's called justification and we all do it
-and quit giving me that 2nd-hand crap about DX10 - HW has caught up
-you are stuck in the past
:thumbsdown: