-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Windows Longhorn/Vista Beta
- Thread starter Googer
- Start date
imported_Kiwi
Golden Member
There has been no "Public Beta" of any sort allowed out into the wilds. There are certain to be some illegally available copies, but any web site like this one that allowed its members to publicly swap URL's for such pirate sites would soon be in trouble. You shouldn't be asking. There is a subscription service that software developers and various system administrators pay for, to Microsoft, to be able to test and evaluate software such as Vista.
:frown:
gsellis
Diamond Member
Either it is available via MSDN (a paid subscription) or via CTP. I think you can still apply to be a CTP member at MS Connect Site
Edit - hmmm... not sure I see a link to apply at Connect. I have been a long time beta tester, so I may have gotten an invitation.
Edit - hmmm... not sure I see a link to apply at Connect. I have been a long time beta tester, so I may have gotten an invitation.
spyordie007
Diamond Member
Why would you be "desparatly searching"? The only legitimate reason I can see that you would be "desparatly searching" for it is if you were developing software and if that's the case you should have a MSDN subscription.
Ronin
Diamond Member
http://server.counter-strike.net/files/vista.html
My current set of images.
http://server.counter-strike.net/images/misc/hdtachshortT7K250.png
http://server.counter-strike.net/images/misc/hdtachlongT7K250.png
Couple of HD benchmarks on the RAID in Vista as well. I was mildly surprised at the results, tbh.
My current set of images.
http://server.counter-strike.net/images/misc/hdtachshortT7K250.png
http://server.counter-strike.net/images/misc/hdtachlongT7K250.png
Couple of HD benchmarks on the RAID in Vista as well. I was mildly surprised at the results, tbh.
Thanks! It's looking good. How is the current performance of the UI with the 7800GTX 512MB? I've seen it running on a GPU similar to mine, a 6600 (possibly GT, not sure), and was not impressed at all - the UI was choppy even during animations of the small property dialogs, and the "flip card" task switcher had weird bright color artifacting. I'm hoping that the drivers improve significantly before release, but I'm not sure how much more performance they could squeeze out of them, and I'm fearful of having to buy an ultra-high-end graphics card just to have a fluid interface with a significant number of apps at 1600x1200.
imported_Kiwi
Golden Member
Geez! Here I am, finally being forced to install XP again (I rejected its gross bloatedness when it was new), because Oblivion won't run without it, and there are people ANXIOUS to go for blimp size now .. Geez!
:disgust:
spyordie007
Diamond Member
Performance under Gold should be better than performance under current builds. It wouldnt surprise me if it ran fine on a system with 512MB (comperable to running XP on 256). System requirements are far from final.
Ronin
Diamond Member
Psst:
Graphics: Vista has changed from using the CPU to display bitmaps on the screen to using the GPU to render vectors. This means the entire display model in Vista has changed. To render the screen in the GPU requires an awful lot of memory to do optimally - 256MB is a happy medium, but you'll actually see benefit from more. Microsoft believes that you're going to see the amount of video memory being shipped on cards hurtle up when Vista ships.
CPU: Threading is the main target for Vista. Currently, very little of Windows XP is threaded - the target is to make Vista perform far better on dual-core and multi-core processors.
RAM: 2GB is the ideal configuration for 64-bit Vista, we're told. Vista 32-bit will work ideally at 1GB, and minimum 512. However, since 64-bit is handling data chunks that are double the size, you'll need double the memory, hence the 2GB. Nigel mentions DDR3 - which is a little odd, since the roadmap for DDR3, on Intel gear at least, doesn't really kick in until 2007.
HDD: SATA is definitely the way forward for Vista, due, Microsoft tells us, to Native Command Queueing. NCQ allows for out of order completions - that is, if Vista needs tasks 1,2,3,4 and 5 done, it can do them in the order 2,5,3,4,1 if that's a more efficient route for the hard drive head to take over the disk. This leads to far faster completion times. NCQ is supported on SATA2 drives, so expect them to start becoming the standard sooner rather than later. Microsoft thinks that these features will provide SCSI-level performance.
Bus: AGP is 'not optimal' for Vista. Because of the fact that graphics cards may have to utilize main system memory for some rendering tasks, a fast, bi-direction bus is needed - that's PCI express.
Display: Prepare to feel the red mist of rage - no current TFT monitor out there is going to support high definition playback in Vista. You may already have heard rumblings about this, but here it is. To play HD-DVD or Blu-Ray content you need a HDCP compatible monitor. Why? Because these formats use HDCP to encrypt a video signal as it travels along a digital connection to an output device, to prevent people copying it. If you have just standard DVI or even an analogue output, you're going to see HD scaled down to a far-less-than-HD resolution for viewing - which sucks. This isn't really Microsoft's fault - HDCP is something that content makers, in their eternal wisdom, have decided is necessary to stop us all watching pirated movies.
Graphics: Vista has changed from using the CPU to display bitmaps on the screen to using the GPU to render vectors. This means the entire display model in Vista has changed. To render the screen in the GPU requires an awful lot of memory to do optimally - 256MB is a happy medium, but you'll actually see benefit from more. Microsoft believes that you're going to see the amount of video memory being shipped on cards hurtle up when Vista ships.
CPU: Threading is the main target for Vista. Currently, very little of Windows XP is threaded - the target is to make Vista perform far better on dual-core and multi-core processors.
RAM: 2GB is the ideal configuration for 64-bit Vista, we're told. Vista 32-bit will work ideally at 1GB, and minimum 512. However, since 64-bit is handling data chunks that are double the size, you'll need double the memory, hence the 2GB. Nigel mentions DDR3 - which is a little odd, since the roadmap for DDR3, on Intel gear at least, doesn't really kick in until 2007.
HDD: SATA is definitely the way forward for Vista, due, Microsoft tells us, to Native Command Queueing. NCQ allows for out of order completions - that is, if Vista needs tasks 1,2,3,4 and 5 done, it can do them in the order 2,5,3,4,1 if that's a more efficient route for the hard drive head to take over the disk. This leads to far faster completion times. NCQ is supported on SATA2 drives, so expect them to start becoming the standard sooner rather than later. Microsoft thinks that these features will provide SCSI-level performance.
Bus: AGP is 'not optimal' for Vista. Because of the fact that graphics cards may have to utilize main system memory for some rendering tasks, a fast, bi-direction bus is needed - that's PCI express.
Display: Prepare to feel the red mist of rage - no current TFT monitor out there is going to support high definition playback in Vista. You may already have heard rumblings about this, but here it is. To play HD-DVD or Blu-Ray content you need a HDCP compatible monitor. Why? Because these formats use HDCP to encrypt a video signal as it travels along a digital connection to an output device, to prevent people copying it. If you have just standard DVI or even an analogue output, you're going to see HD scaled down to a far-less-than-HD resolution for viewing - which sucks. This isn't really Microsoft's fault - HDCP is something that content makers, in their eternal wisdom, have decided is necessary to stop us all watching pirated movies.
spyordie007
Diamond Member
You dont *need* 256 for it to be decent. My laptop has a 64MB Radeon x300 and it does quite well with Aero Glass. Is it better on my desktop with a 256MB 6600GT? Of course, more is going to be better...
Not sure what you mean, a good deal of XP components (at least the important ones) are threaded. But yes you're right in that they are targeting to be able to take as much advantage as they can over mult-core platforms.
This has been discussed to death, it's an issue under all platforms (not just Vista).
Hmm, could a 128MB vram graphics card be limiting Vista that much? In theory, you could get about 16 1600x1200 windows in 32 bit color in addition to the framebuffer, but what I saw would seem to indicate otherwise. Maybe when Vista comes out, I'll have a good excuse to get an ATI X2000 or NVidia 8000GTX, either with 1GB of onboard RAM. 😉
BTW, do you know (or do the computer architecture experts feel like explaining) how 32 bit Vista can manage to see all 4GB of RAM on a system where XP 32 only sees 3GB (XP x64 sees all 4GB, of course). I don't have a clue how it manages this, other than that I've seen it on a friend's test system. :Q
Ronin
Diamond Member
32bit Vista is still an X64 OS natively. That's the answer to your question (that, and WinXP is finicky over 2GB, for all intents and purposes).
spyordie007: If you're going to try and justify that Vista is going to work for the masses, I'm afraid it's not going to happen. I'm interested to see what you consider 'smooth'. It's not just about DWM, and they haven't even begun to do the full bore desktop experience, so enjoy your Beta while you can (side note: not only am I MSDN, but I'm a developer. I'm well aware of the direction of Vista, and its core).
I saved myself some time above by copy/pasting from another website. If you'd like me to go into non-NDA technicals, we can have that conversation.
spyordie007: If you're going to try and justify that Vista is going to work for the masses, I'm afraid it's not going to happen. I'm interested to see what you consider 'smooth'. It's not just about DWM, and they haven't even begun to do the full bore desktop experience, so enjoy your Beta while you can (side note: not only am I MSDN, but I'm a developer. I'm well aware of the direction of Vista, and its core).
I saved myself some time above by copy/pasting from another website. If you'd like me to go into non-NDA technicals, we can have that conversation.
That doesn't add up. If Vista is a "64 bit OS at its core" then how does it run on systems without 64 bit extensions at all? And how does the 32 bit version use 32 bit drivers? I could see it using something like 32 bit server editions of Windows use to access much RAM, but I'm not going to buy the "32 bit version is really a 64 bit version at heart" thing without a bit more convincing than is offered by a simple blanket statement of fact without any proof or reasoning to back it up. Sorry, no offense, but I'm mildly skeptical about that particular claim.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
