Windows XP vs. Vista: The Benchmark Rundown - Page 5 - Vista-General-Discussion

Last message on previous page:
Basically, you can't develop for hardware that doesn't exist.

Reply to dasickninja

Register or log in to remove.

And what hardware didn't exist?

K8 was out long before Intel's first x86-64 offering. The hardware was there. It's just because the industry is so Intel-centric that they don't do anything to take advantage of AMD's innovations unless Intel copies them. Bascially, no excuse. Once Opteron and Athlon hit the market, the hardware for 64-bit was in place.

Reply to Zoron

I guess money walks. AMD's small percentage of market share compared to intel's wasn't going to be enough to move the 64 bit industry. Now that mostly all new systems will be 64 bit it makes sense that the ball will get rolling a lot faster. I just think it's too bad that XP x64 never got a chance to mature. It had potential to be such an awesome robust OS. Just the fact that there isn't much SW support means less spyware and viruses. But now we'll never know if x64 even matters because Vista will be the next thing. I'm just not sure if we'll ever be able to get settled into an OS anymore and that's frustrating.

Reply to kstrat2001

Photographer, you Legend :-)

lol Guillone got owned. And no more than he deserved. Blaming microsoft because nobody is writing software or drivers for the 64bit version of Vista. LOL.

Microsoft has had a 64 bit platform available for a few years now. Is it Microsoft's fault that developers and hardware companies haven't produced software and drivers because they are concentrating on the 32bit market, because that is where the money is. Consumers are what drives most companies.

Yes you can have your opinion, but, you at least try to make it an educated opinion. All the things you mentioned in your posts Guillone are really odd. Like the web development. I know lots of companies that develope web sites etc. that use Windows, but they don't use asp.net or any other microsoft software.

You mention that you want open source and then say you are going the apple route? Isn't that a contradiction? Isn't Apple really proprietary?

Then you mention the price, that apple is so much cheaper, that a windows machine is much more expensive? You said you would have to spend $5000 for a computer capable of running 64 bit Windows. What about this PC:-
2gb of ram,
a core duo CPU running at 1.85GHZ,
300GB sata2 hardrive,
19 lcd monitor
Vista home premium installed.

More than capable of running Vista 64bit or 32 bit. I could buy this PC today for about 950 dollars. I don't know where you shop, but I would suggest you try a new place. The Mac with roughly the same specs costs about 500 dollars more at least. I don't know where you get your information from, but, in the real world, A vista Pc is much cheaper than a mac.

I too am curious about the "fun factor" that the mac has over the PC. Please explain this? Please!!!

Again, What a post Photographer, well wrote and well delivered :-)

Quote :

Your talking points just reinforce my opinions. You have your opinion I have mine. I'm not here to debate the issue, but to voice my opinion that Microsoft will not get any more money out of me for shoddy products.

So you persist even though your opinion is based on incorrect assumptions ? Brilliant.

Quote :

The fact that there is now a "viable" alternative with Mac finally means I don't have to be stuck in the MSFT monopoly anymore.

You call an OS that has less than 5% of the market share viable ? Please review Economics 101 and then return to the conversation.

Quote :

I can develop web-sites with Mac OSX Server using AMP and that's all that matters to me. I'm not locked into ASP.Net or Windows servers or any other back-door restraints from them.

And you can't do this on a MS box, why ? As someone who manages 14 websites, I can assure you that you do not need ASP.NET or any other MS proprietary technology to build a website. How about PHP ? How about ASP ? Heck, how about plain ol' HTML and CSS ?

<snip drivel>

Quote :

Yes, I could have bought a workstation 64bit machine years ago, but I've been waiting for a consumer version.

Consumers don't need to access more than 4GB of RAM. That's why there aren't many 64 bit apps in the first place much less ones that are targetd to consumers.

Quote :

'd rather buy what Steve Jobs is selling. He has a better box and more attention to what consumers want.Period.

We can tell. Apple is such a raving success story. </sarcasm>

Quote :

That should be fairly obvious if you're paying any attention at all to where the two platforms are headed. Zune or iPod? Vista or OSX?
Not a tough call to make for a consumer.

Ah ! The infamous iPod ! What a proprietary piece of garbage !

Quote :

I can buy a fully loaded Mac with everything I need for less than a Vista box. Case closed.

Really ? Where ? Show me the money !

Quote :

We haven't even mentioned the "Fun Factor".

Oh this ought to be good !

Quote :

Apple has always kicked MSFT's ass on that one and I've never owned a Mac,

I have and your full of it.

Quote :

but I've used them over the years. Seems like perfect timing; Gates is leaving MSFT at the same time I am. It's a sign....hahahahaha.

A sign ? Yes that he's moving on and hopefully you're growing up. Now don't forget to brush your teeth and wear your rubbers when it's raining..

Quote :

I don't have to defend my argument, just go back and look at the message board postings of the "crash and burn" that is happening right now on Vista "not working". Please, go argue with someone else. Peace.

LOL ! Guess what I'm running ? Vista ! And the uptime is now at 5 days straight. No crashes. Sound like someones using beta drivers or poorly written applications.

Reply to melmac

Sounds like a shill working for Microsoft.

Reply to guillone

Not everyone that can articulate their points better than you is a shill.

Reply to dasickninja

Obviously, none of you guys have a clue about what my point was with my conversation. I'm not a Mac lover, never owned one and could give a shit.
I've owned a Microsoft box of some kind since 1983. I'm sure they'll fix all the bugs in Vista. They always do. I've built my own and have programmed them on the job and used them for consumer amusement for almost 25 years now.
I could give a shit about which one is best, we'll let all you four year olds argue that one out. I'm retired, don't need a fancy rig anymore. Finally, Mac has managed to figure out how to market to a certain segment of consumer.
And, they are gaining market share. I never said Mac wasn't proprietary. They have always been so proprietary that I never bought one because of it.
Today, however, they seem to have enough off the shelf useful consumer oriented software to pretty much do what the average Joe needs to do.
Surf the Web, make a video, make a CD, watch a movie, etc. Also, their pricepoint has finally become reasonable for what you get. Nice little packaged unit with some apps to amuse yourself with. Vista appears to, according to Tom's article, not me (which is what I was referencing, not engaging in a bunch personal attacks like you assholes) be moving somewhat towards a more limited hardware model than before. It's not that you can't run a cheap video card on Vista, it's that you have to run a fast one to get Ultimate to work. And I understand the pros and cons of why that is. the OS is using the GPU to do some cool tricks if you have the juice to take advantage of it. So, they'll continue to dominate 95% of the space and that's fine. It's just nice to know now we have a legitimate alternative to Bill Gates' vision of what a PC should be. I like choices and basically we've never had one until now. I also like the movement on the Internet that is trying to make the concept of an OS almost irrelevant. I don't think that will ever happen, but it's nice to see them try to develop online apps. It just gets more people into the creative mix and I think that is what leads to faster innovation; not, stifled monopolies. They have the advantage of bringing stability to the marketplace, but it is always disruptive technology that moves us forward. Can you imagine where we'd be if Bill Gates would have bought up the Internet and choked it off? So, yea, Steve Jobs is a proprietary prick, but at least he keeps trying to push the envelope. Gates' business model is like Sony: let the shakers jump on the new stuff and bankrupt themselves and then he sees where the trend is and move in and dominates the space. Great business model.
Also, I know consumers don't use 64bit machines; I just wanted to see the day when A full blown workstation would be available at the consumer level so enthusiasts like myself could have fun playing with it without having to spend an arm and a leg. There are still no apps, that isn't anyone's fault. The market determines that. Leopard will be just as limited on 64 bit apps as everyone because no demand has been created at this time. So, go yell at some Mac geeks and get off my ass. Jesus, you guys are a bunch of doorknobs.

Reply to guillone

LOL, Sorry guillone if it came accross as a personel attack, but I still dont have a clue what your point is!!

And secondly, I am still waiting for you to tell me what the "Fun factor" is in owning a mac over a pc?

I have vista installed on my parents Pc as a test. It has 1GB ram, Athlon XP 2.4 GHZ, 256 radeon 9800XT and a 80GB harddisk. It runs fine. It's the ulitmate edition with Aero installed. It's not the fastest, but then again the hardware is over 4 years old and would probably cost about $300 today. And if you install 1 GB more ram it runs fairly smooth. Vista seems to be running more resources, but if you read the superfetch article you will understand why. And it works, even on my parents PC, apps might take a while to start first time round, but, a few tries later the apps open really quickly.

And you mention spending an arm and a leg for a 64 bit workstation and again I have to say to you where are you buying your computers? You can a buy a full blown 64 bit workstation for less than a 1000 dollars. Heck, you could probably get one without a monitor for 600 dollars. You can still install open office, you can get loads of free apps to burn CD's you do everything that an average Joe wants to do without buying anything else other than the PC and operating system. Why would you "an average Joe" who is settling for a mac with nothing fancy on it, want the ultimate edition of Vista?

We have never been fighting about which one is best, We have discussing the reasons that you gave for not going with microsoft. And I can't see one valid reason, other than the fact that you hate microsoft :-) That point comes accross loud and clear.

You keep mentioning price and cost and movers and shakers bankrupting themselves to jump on the new stuff. That's after I pointed out to you that the Mac is more expensive, you can get a Vista machine for less.

And despite all you say, the people that have been pushing and pushing the developement of new hardware have been gamers. They have been the ones jumping on the new hardware. Microsoft had to come with up with a whole new operating system to make directx10 available to said gamers.

Which leads me to another point you make, Steve Jobs is a legend for pushing the evvelope. But Microsoft is not? It's easier for a small company to make big changes. Like take linux, that changes all the time without no big fuss, because there isn't enough users to make a fuss. Same with Apple. But when a company likes Microsoft changes it's OS, then people jump on the complaining bandwagon. It needs to much hardware, it is too different, it is blah, blah, blah. Even though the hardware capable of running Vista has been around for 2 years now. And again, you don't have to go to Vista. Just wait until you are buying a new PC then get vista, that's what most of the consumers that I deal with in my business are doing.

It's nice to have the creative mix all right. But with the internet I think that innovation would be there anyway. Because people are inventive and like to try new things. But, you need the stability of a company like microsoft. They provide a uniformity in the business and home user world.

And, lol, truth be told, We all hate Microsoft because they are so successfull :-)

And again, apologies, my last post wasn't mean't to be a personel attack on you Guillone.

Reply to melmac

All valid points you make, my friend. I guess the easiest way to describe what I'm saying is: after driving a BMW for 25 years I'll think I'll try a Mercedes. I don't know if it is as good as a BMW but sometimes change is good.
With the release of Vista they haven't given me personally any impelling reason to use it. I like XP just fine. So, I thought it might be time to add a Mac to my household and see if Jobs finally figured out how to make a computer. (hahaha) I'm keeping my two XP boxes though, because I know they work and they're paid for and do everything I need. I didn't really see anything new in Vista that caught my imagination.
Now, the only question is this: is it o.k. if I feel that way? Or, do I need permission from all you guys who hate Apple to try one out?
Can we even discuss Apple as a possibility here at Tom's website or is this a Microsoft only site? Because I would like some honest feedback on both platforms to make a better informed choice without getting flamed for wanting to have the discussion. I know Apple and I know Microsoft, I was here long before both of them and watched the whole enchilada unfold. I remember when this discussion was "IBM is the 600lb gorilla that is trying to crush the competition." The reason we all fell in love with Gates was because he stood up to them and beat them at their own game. David beat Goliath. The reason he got my money and Steve Jobs didn't was because he was open and cheap and Jobs was all proprietary and arrogant. That seems to be shifting now. Apple is changing it's tune and recognizing they need the consumer, not just a small group of stuck up yuppies. Whereas I'm mostly just confused about this release; what exactly do I need it for? And yes, I will wait like always for the smoke to clear and see where we are headed here before I purchase Vista. I was under the wrong impression that Vista was going to move us into 64bit computing and the vendors would be releasing some cool software at the same time to make us want to get that next killer app...nada.

thanks for toning it down a notch, I don't respond well to flaming and sarcasm, too old a dog for that kind of b.s.
Cost wise I see know advantage either way, it's a non-issue. I look at a Gateway 5730XT (I think that is it)with a quad core and they want four to five thousand for it. I was going to get one with Vista Ultimate until I read this article from Tom's Hardware;

Quote :

"For example, Adobe Photoshop takes care of creating a temporary work file every time it launches - Vista has no access to this process and cannot speed it up."

So, is this article saying I'm better off sticking with XP? These are things I need to know.
Photoshop is something I use alot. My main intensive needs are Photoshop( I do all the workflow for my wife who is a professional photographer), multitrack audio recording with all the bells and whistles. I use Sonar so they got me covered on the software for 64bit.
I'd like to speed up video editing and start shooting in HD. I need the horsepower to do that and still multitask at the same time. I'm a power hog. hahaha. This P4 3.2Ghz laptop is just not keeping up with me anymore. So, I was all set to jump until, like a dumb-ass, I read this article. I'm still pissed about it. So, I took it out on Gates. hahahaha
He's a big boy, he can handle it. I figure by now, he's got enough of my money to buy me a new PC. lol
Any thoughts?
Peace.

Reply to guillone

One things that still confuses me (and correct me if I'm wrong) is the resentment of everybody for the money they have paid to MS for their OS ("Bill has got enough of my money...blah..blah" ). How is this any different with a Mac...Apple charges $ 129 for their OSX Tiger version, which surely isn't a big difference from the $ 99-250 (depending on version) you have to pay for a Vista OEM...Sure, when buying a new mac you get the OS for 'free' (as in, factored into the price you pay) but isn't this the same with buying a PC from Dell, or Gateway? See cost is a non-issue in this debate, since both OSes (OSX and Vista) cost money, and they cost about the same for the same functions (Home Premium/Bussines will be the OS fit for most people).

In my experience, the initial thing with Vista was 'oh, it looks fancier, big deal', but the more I use it (my main and only OS since it was released) the more am pleasantly surprised by all the not so obvious improvements. Productivity has increased a lot since apps load faster, and multitasking is SOOO much easier with Aero (much more than just 'eye candy'). New file and folder structure takes some getting used to, but are a real improvement IMO. I have not had ANY performance issues, nor have I had a single moment where I thought; mmm...XP did that So much faster. Photoshop CS2 (One of my most used programs), although not optimised yet to benefit from Vista's new caching systems, runs fine (like it did in XP), and perhaps CS3 (in Beta now) will make more use of Vista's 'performance enhancing drugs'.

As for some feedback with regards to OSX. I have last used Apple in a production environment in the OS9 era, and wasn't overly pleased with them. I have now spent the last couple of days playing around with OSX 'Tiger', and I still feel that way. I feel a lot more restricted in an Apple environment than in a Windows environment (Vista included), and it still REALLY REALLY bugs me that I have no free choice of components (and the components they DO offer are always at least a generation behind, especially where GFX are concerned). This may sound strange is your ears, but I think the reason that apple still has such a small market share is because it is so restrictive and proprietary. Mac users may see that as 'think different', but different in this case means 'think apple' because anything else is unsupported. And the fact that apple now allows XP/Vista to be installed on their hardware surely says something about how Steve Jobs really thinks about XP/Vista, as it may be Apples ultimate survival tactic...Have you not noticed that Apples sales went up, roughly at the same time they introduced Intel and Boot Camp?

On 64bit...TBH I think Vista may well be the OS to move us into 64bit, but that move will occur when the market is ready, and the limits of 32bit are no longer acceptable...Not because an OS forces it upon us. Many users will move from 32bit to 64bit during the Vista lifecycle, but at their own pace. I myself have taken a more cautious approach with my new PC (Vista 32bit), after spending 2 years struggling with support for my previous PC running XP64 on AMD64.

The more I use Vista, and the more I read about it on Driver forums and OpenGL forums, the more I think this article was written at a bit of an unfortunate moment (hey, we all want to be the first to tell the story!)...Right before some major driver releases, and well before Software developers have gotten around to making sure their Software can make the most of Vista.

All these discussions have gotten me on a bit of a fact finding journey the last couple of weeks, and I am rediscovering Operating Systems I have left behind a long time ago (Linux, MacOS, even Win98...) but not once during this journey have I felt the urge to drop Vista and go Mac or Linux. That is my experience, and I have found most FUD on the various blogs to be uninformed and biased BS. If I read somewhere that Vista or any OS 'breaks' something or restricts something or slows something down, I am not the one to take that as a universal truth, and the enthusiast in me makes me want to find out for myself. I almost every case with Vista, I have been pleasantly surprised to find out that often the opposite is true (at least on my Rig...)

One last thing...In the last few years, I too have often felt the urge to get myself an Apple, since I have to admit there is something very attractive about their hardware and software (design that is). But everytime I ask myself 'What on earth would I do with it...?', and in my case that question has remained unanswered...

Reply to KwyjiboNL77

Yeah agree! MS has done us (wanna be geeks) a favor and all vendors. By creating a new OS for us to work with. MS has made a more user friendly OS
I should say i have had Apple for two years.. And Nothing would run on it except Applsoftware. ( i was very limited)
Apple is great for ppl who can't think for themselves. I have friends that bash MS. But they don't know how to copy and paste.

I have upgraded to vista from feb 1st. Yes there are a few drivers missing, But over all it the best thing i did. Vista has great WOWs. But more than that. Has some owesome features, over xp. It went flawless.
I did a reload on a reformated drive with xp. Ran update. then loaded vista ulitmate. And it has ran without a hitch. I have loaded a few games. It got stuck on BF2. But, after updateing it. Boom again ran with out hitch.
I have a moble 5 pda.. for danest thing i couldn't get it to work very well with XP. But with vista. I pluged it in. Vista found the device. requred a d/l and Boom there it was. ready to sync. Man that was the best!

About Nivida.. they are working to get the drivers out. (due in time)

But i guess what i'm tryying to say... bashing it before you try it kinda.. B.S.
So If you haven't loaded it yet ( Any OS) Don't bash it before you ride.
I'm riding a awesome ride! Peace on earth!

Reply to Chenega

Quote :

About Nivida.. they are working to get the drivers out. (due in time)

Actually I think all of the nVidia drivers are posted. Finally. I installed the NF4 drivers on my system and was pleased to note a slight but detectable increase in performance.

My system is racking up some serious Vista uptime. No crashes and no reboots except after the installation of the NF4 drivers.Running fast and smooth. Is Vista a huge update in the GUI from XP ? Not to me. I have it setup almost exactly like XP. But it's what's under the hood that counts. XP is a 5+ year old OS that had been seriously revised and updated 2X with numerous other patches. Vista rolls all of that and more up into a coherent platform. There's only so much one can do with an old platform before it's time to make a break and start fresh. In 1.5 years Vista will be flying on dual and quad core systems. Hopefully there will be significantly more 64 bit apps that are much better written to take advantage of Vistas capabilities.

Reply to photographer

Well, I should make a note to my comment.
From the Nividia release:

http://us.download.nvidia.com/Wind [...] _Notes.pdf

About mid way down.

ForceWare Graphic Driver (Release 100 Notes)

NVIDIA SLI Technology
On SLI-ready systems, the NIVIDIA Control Panel now includes SLI controls 3D settings Catagory task page.
This driver has limited support for NVIDA SLI techonlogy on top DirectX
9.0 and openGL applications for GeForce 8800 GPU only.
NIVIDIA will continue to provided driver updates for NVIDIA SLI on an ongoing basis to add new product support.

So I have 2x7950gt xfx extremes on board. And i can't use them!
Yes my chips work and one card works (I think).
But when i plug into my second card to sli.. NO GO!

So, I see they have SLI for 8800 cards sorta.
But for the masses out there that bought 2 cards to run on SLI.
Sry out of luck at this time.
So In DUE time NVIDIA Hopfully will have it together!

So, once again it early on the ride..... tick-toc.. tick-toc...tic-toc.. lol

Peace on earth! :roll:

Reply to Chenega

xxxxyyyy

Reply to guillone

Thanks for your insight. Those are very useful comments for me, I appreciate it.

Reply to guillone

thanks for the info, what are your opinions of the Gateway 530XT quad-core for this new Vista OS? That is what I was looking at before I got sidetracked on this article. Any hardware considerations? Or does it look like a runner?
thanks

Reply to guillone

If I had the $$$ and didn't feel like building my own system I would buy that gateway

Reply to danny9894

Hmmm Gateway... I have heard not the greatest things about gateway. But i never owned one.
I have delt alot with Dell. I have to say about Dell has good machines and the service is AWESOME!

It's really a hit or miss world out there.

http://www.dell.com/content/produc [...] l=en&s=dhs

Good luck on the new ride.. Peace on earth!
:wink:

Reply to Chenega

I wish these articles would be more based on reality:

First, the system hardware is not representative of what most people could afford --- your system is using an intel 6800 processor that costs $1000 -- how about running these tests on systems that people can actually buy in the real world---

Additionally, your systems have 2 megabytes of ram; however, microsofts minimum specification is 1 megabyte of ram (to use all features of vista) - is one meg sufficient??? I dont know??? --- your article does not answer this question --- why not run two tests --- one with 2 megs --- and one with 1 meg to see how this impacts performance

With regard to testing, the article states:

" * Tweak the OS: turn off animations and AeroGlass for maximum system performance."

It would of been nice if you would of run both cases where aero is on and off as one reason to go to vista would be to use the new interface

The article also says that numerous functions were disabled or modified

"* Disable User Access Control to prevent it from interrupting certain benchmarks."
* Have the OS process pending idle tasks
* Turn off system restore"

Most users would have these on by default; and, therefore, the performance results do not represent real world results --- at the very least, two sets of tests should of been done ---- one with "tweaks" and one without "tweaks". Additionally, it appears much of the tweaking was done on the vista system --- how much tweaking could of been done on the xp system so as to increase performance????

The article also states:

* Install all applications, and execute them several times (with restarts in between) to make SuperFetch aware that you want them to be available.
* Don't use the system after reboots during your SuperFetch training period: this way, Vista gets sufficient idle time to "superfetch" applications."

Why not also use a third party cache program for xp that is similar to vista's superfetch so as to tweak the performance of the xp system. What about performing two tests --- one with superfetch on ---- and one with superfetch off - as there are times that you may need access to applications which have not been optimized through "superfetch". Additionally, superfetch eats up more memory by caching programs it thinks your going to use in memory -- and therefore it may be desirable for some to turn superfetch off.

It would be nice if we can get both sides of story in these articles --- rather than tweaking vista to the point where I dont really know what to think. I also don't know what to think of you using a $1000 processor for this test -- this is not representative of what people can presently afford - and therefore highly question what the performance results would be using an average cpu. Can you do another article that uses a "real world" system that people can afford and that gives results for vista in its default state rather than a "tweaked" state --- or at least give the result for both the "tweaked" and "default" state.

Reply to dsharp9000

To clarify above ---- when I refer to megs of ram should of been gigs of ram --- sorry for the confusion

Reply to dsharp9000

I bought a new computer with vista--- I liked it. The alt-tab looks nice. Playing hi-def videos, I noticed it was taking about 70% of my cpu. I read a few articles on vista & drm. Curious, I backed up vista to a different drive, installed xp64 and played the same hidef video under xp64 --- the cpu utilization was 11%.

Needless to say, vista won't be going back on my system any time soon.

Reply to mosquitoguy

Quote :

I bought a new computer with vista--- I liked it. The alt-tab looks nice. Playing hi-def videos, I noticed it was taking about 70% of my cpu. I read a few articles on vista & drm. Curious, I backed up vista to a different drive, installed xp64 and played the same hidef video under xp64 --- the cpu utilization was 11%.

Needless to say, vista won't be going back on my system any time soon.

So you are hereby admitting to software piracy!? XP64 only came in OEM (tied to the first PC it was installed on), and I would be surprised if you purchased a license of XP64 just to check this out...

Reply to KwyjiboNL77

Quote :

So you are hereby admitting to software piracy!? XP64 only came in OEM (tied to the first PC it was installed on), and I would be surprised if you purchased a license of XP64 just to check this out...

Interesting that you assume piracy on xp64 but mentioned nothing about the hi-def content, or for that matter, the software I used to play it. Not that my admission or denial is any concern of yours, unless you have a big poster of Bill Gates hanging in your bedroom and his face is the last thing you see before going to sleep.

Reply to mosquitoguy

Quote :

Interesting that you assume piracy on xp64 but mentioned nothing about the hi-def content, or for that matter, the software I used to play it. Not that my admission or denial is any concern of yours, unless you have a big poster of Bill Gates hanging in your bedroom and his face is the last thing you see before going to sleep.

So a little joke is not possible anymore on these boards...OK...

It is interesting though that you talk about HD content, but haven't mentioned what kind of content, what graphics card, wether or not hardware acceleration was used in XP64 or Vista, what drivers where used. You automatically assumed it was the Vista DRM that caused your high CPU load...

Reply to KwyjiboNL77

I haven't noticed an increase in CPU usage between video types. I would assume a driver, codex or player issue first.

Reply to pkellmey

Quote :

I haven't noticed an increase in CPU usage between video types. I would assume a driver, codex or player issue first.

Well, in any case, he won't know what it was because 'Needless to say, vista won't be going back on his system any time soon.'

Reply to KwyjiboNL77

Quote :

I haven't noticed an increase in CPU usage between video types. I would assume a driver, codex or player issue first.

Player is vlc which uses its own codecs. wmp11/mce is out of the question since it stutters (horribly) when playing at 1920x1200 resolution.

It may be a driver problem since microsoft added a bunch of drm requirements for vista video drivers. see this: http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut [...] _cost.html

nvidia drivers are still in beta, and given the added crap they have to implement (e.g. "In order to prevent active attacks, device drivers are required to poll the underlying hardware every 30ms for digital outputs and every 150 ms for analog ones to ensure that everything appears kosher" ), it will probably take them a few months to get the kinks out.

Reply to mosquitoguy

Quote :

I haven't noticed an increase in CPU usage between video types. I would assume a driver, codex or player issue first.

Player is vlc which uses its own codecs. wmp11/mce is out of the question since it stutters (horribly) when playing at 1920x1200 resolution.

It may be a driver problem since microsoft added a bunch of drm requirements for vista video drivers. see this: http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut [...] _cost.html

nvidia drivers are still in beta, and given the added crap they have to implement (e.g. "In order to prevent active attacks, device drivers are required to poll the underlying hardware every 30ms for digital outputs and every 150 ms for analog ones to ensure that everything appears kosher" ), it will probably take them a few months to get the kinks out.

Well, HD content that doesn't specifically require DRM to play (everything except HD-DVD/BlueRay or Purchased HD content), will not be hampered by it either. VLC uses software based codecs (in Vista), so isn't the best for Highres content playback, more so because the hardware overlay that existed in previous versions of windows, isn't there in Vista. The same clip in VLC may use a lot more CPU than in WMP, bacuase hardware acceleration may not be used. I can playback 1080p content in vista on my GF8800 using WMP and it will not use anything near 70% CPU... VLC/Drivers are the issue here, not DRM. DRM will only use CPU cycles on 'Premium' Content (IE Protected content) and will not kick in on anything else. And that article, which has been referred to so many time in several forums is just mostly FUD. If you do not use HDDVD/BlueRay, or purchase any Protected Content, DRM will NOT interfere with your Playback in any way. Vista will not prevent you from playing pirated content, or downloading it, it will not slowdown playback of non-protected content, any more than XP. If your WMP/MCE stutters horribly, then you are looking at a driver/codec problem, not DRM kicking in...

*EDIT* I would like to add that if DRM is of a particular concern to you, the only way to fight it is by NOT buying protected content. Don't buy HD-DVD's, BlueRay's, Video on Demand, iTunes Songs, SACD's etc. It is the content IP owners that impose these restrictive measures, so by not buying this content you can protest, avoiding Hardware/Software that is will allow this content to be played back doesn't send any message to the content providers, it sends a message to the wrong people instead.

Reply to KwyjiboNL77

Quote :

Don't buy HD-DVD's, BlueRay's, Video on Demand, iTunes Songs, SACD's etc.

Wow, a voice of reason - you obviously have no business on this forum. :lol: Like you said, I have also played back content at 1920x1200 resolution with no issues in WMP so there is obviously a content/driver issue here. No issues when I play 1080P content - not even the slightest slow-down or stutter. This just points to HD-DVD/BlueRay/protected content/drivers issues and not Vista. I don't even get the expected CPU increase that everyone claims has to be there. I stay away from those techs like they're poison and I have had no issues. The old link may be valid criticisims for a very small amount of content that, overall, very few people are currently using, but current evidence is pointing toward it being complete bs. Update your BIOS/drivers/codecs, people, before you decide it's an OS issue.

Reply to pkellmey

One of the funniest things in that 'Cost Analysis' bit is that he start off his article with SACD, now talk about a failed standard, he might as well have been talking about Betamax, or Minidisc...The point is, the market has the power to decide when enough is enough, not MS, and it is up to us to make sure this message gets across. Don't buy DRM protected stuff, simple as that. The guy in the article is painting a doom scenario where all content a few years from now is of the 'Premium' variety, but not if I can help it. If anything, the more restrictions they impose on legally purchased content, the more you will see honest people looking for alternatives (often of a less honest nature). If you don't want anything to do with DRM, don't buy any content that uses it and Vista will not mess with you (or XP, OSX and Linux for that matter). If you buy stuff that uses DRM, you are the one supporting it, so you will have to accept the consequences...You can't have both...

Reply to KwyjiboNL77

Quote :

If you do not use HDDVD/BlueRay, or purchase any Protected Content, DRM will NOT interfere with your Playback in any way.

This is an assumption, not fact. I haven't seen the code for nvidia's graphic drivers, so I don't know for a fact whether the new Vista driver requirements for drm interferes with non-protected content.

Quote :

If your WMP/MCE stutters horribly, then you are looking at a driver/codec problem, not DRM kicking in...

This is a matter of perception. VLC/WMP11 runs fine on XP. MCE runs fine on my MCE2005 PC. You call it a driver/codec problem. I call it a Vista problem.

Quote :

*EDIT* I would like to add that if DRM is of a particular concern to you, the only way to fight it is by NOT buying protected content.

I don't touch DRM. Given that, the new security requirements of Vista for protected content is like buying a state-of-the-art sprinkler system for my fake lawn. The fact that my CPU is spending an extra cycle for it doesn't come without resentment on my part.

Reply to mosquitoguy

Ok, let me put it this way;

My PC runs Vista Ultimate 32bit.

My PC does not use excessive CPU cycles to playback Video/Audio Content. WMV HD/Divx HD included.

On my PC playback of Video, Including 1080p HD content, does not result in stuttering, downgrading of signal or reduced audio fidelity, using both WMP or VLC.

My PC has DRM protected 'premium' content on it (iTunes purchased AAC filed), yet not once has my PC stopped playback of such (or other) files, nor has it ever reset Audio or Video subsystem.

My PC feels quicker running Vista (including most games) that it did running XP MCE. That is despite DRM supposedly crippling my Windows experience.

As long as you don't post any information about which processes are hogging your CPU, the assumption that 'it must be Vista' is wrong. Vista has just been released and a lot of graphics card lack proper support for hardware accelerated playback, and with the new desktop composition of the Aero interface, they cannot resort to XP methods for Hardware Overlay. If your PC has good enough hardware to playback (unprotected) 1080p content, then the issues you are describing point to a driver/software issue, and with companies like nVidia being very late with support/Drivers, blaming Vista's DRM seems unrational. Have you checked all other possibilities before you came to this conclusion? Go over to the nVidia forum and you will know in what shape the current drivers are, combine that with the fact that a lot of users lack the knowledge to properly install/configure their hardware (on more than one occasion GFX card issues were solved by installing Motherboard drivers, a possibility some users failed to see as a problem).

My system is doing fine with Vista, as it was doing fine with XP. I have encountered issues and problems since installing Vista (including bad playback, and playback artefacts) but all these issues have been solved by looking outside of the DRM-culprit (Divx will not playback properly, I am using Xvid instead, and Nero 7 lite played havock on WMP MPEG2 playback (god knows why!) and uninstalling Nero solved the issue there).

Reply to KwyjiboNL77

Quote :

As long as you don't post any information about which processes are hogging your CPU, the assumption that 'it must be Vista' is wrong.

Why is it wrong? Just because YOU are not having any problems and hence in YOUR perception there's nothing wrong with Vista, doesn't make your opinion right.

It's true that I can pass the buck to Nvidia and say that this problem is all Nvidia's fault for not supporting Vista properly, but that's just playing politics. As an end-user, I really don't care whether Nvidia drivers are still in beta. If Nvidia takes 6 months to get their drivers out of beta, Microsoft is NOT blameless for it. I evaluate Vista as a whole, not as individual parts.

Lack of application and driver support is the reason why I DON'T run Linux, so why should I treat Vista any different? Does it matter that Linux is a great operating system by itself? If it doesn't do what I want, it's all moot.

Reply to mosquitoguy

You can't blame Linux for lack of vendor support... so why blame MS for the same? It's not the fault of the OS (Linux) that ATi's drivers aren't what they should be... so how can it be Vista's fault if nVidia's drivers aren't up to snuff? How long have they had for driver development?

When something isn't done, people always look for someone else to blame. Both nVidia and ATi whined about Vista and shifted the blame to MS for their drivers not being fully ready at launch. It does your customers a great disservice when you start pointing fingers at others for your own shortcomings. I'm not denying that writing drivers for Vista may be more challenging than it was for XP... and while MS can be blamed for that much... it is still no excuse for vendors.

Reply to Zoron

Quote :

You can't blame Linux for lack of vendor support... so why blame MS for the same?

The lack of vendor support on Linux is simply because there's not enough profit in the end-user marketplace. The reason for that is simple: you can't play DirectX games on Linux. The reason for that is because Linux developers don't play games on Linux and there never has any momentum to develop an architecture that's friendly for gaming. DirectX has no competition because the "G" in GNU stands for Geek.

DirectX 10 is the only reason why people would leave XP permanently and upgrade to Vista, and is also the reason why Microsoft would never implement DX10 on XP. End users don't care about protected content, security issues, and all the hoopla that Microsoft is bragging about Vista.

Quote :

When something isn't done, people always look for someone else to blame. Both nVidia and ATi whined about Vista and shifted the blame to MS for their drivers not being fully ready at launch.

A driver specification is nothing but hot air until someone implements it. The speed at which you can implement depends on the complexity of the specification. A specification that's more complex ends up in slower implementation time and slower performance. This is why Vista has higher hardware requirements, and why Nvidia drivers are still in beta.

Why does Vista need faster hardware? Is it so that I can have a better-looking alt-tab? A $200 task manager replacement with translucent windows (Aero) ? This is a thief's game when he visually distracts you with his right hand while his left is pulling out your wallet. This is why Microsoft dropped WinFS in favor of Aero, and why Apple computers look cute-- because the average computer users are dumb and easily distracted by nice looking things.

Quote :

I'm not denying that writing drivers for Vista may be more challenging than it was for XP... and while MS can be blamed for that much... it is still no excuse for vendors.

Gee, I think you got it backwards. It should be the hardware vendors that dictates Microsoft, not the other way around.

I wish these vendors would get together and agree NOT to finish their Vista drivers, and start writing Linux drivers instead. Nvidia should sell two versions of their chips --- a Vista version with HDCP support and a non-Vista version at a lower price.

That would show Microsoft that you can't be on top without someone at the bottom supporting you.

Reply to mosquitoguy

Quote :

Gee, I think you got it backwards. It should be the hardware vendors that dictates Microsoft, not the other way around.

I never suggested that one should dictate to the other in either fashion; I merely suggested that if a new OS pops up, vendors should have their drivers in place at launch or very shortly afterward.

Quote :

The lack of vendor support on Linux is simply because there's not enough profit in the end-user marketplace.

I'm tired of that excuse. Logitech forced down the throats of WinXP x64 for over 2 years before finally developing 64-bit drivers to coincide with Vista's launch. What changed all of a sudden? Did Vista's release somehow make XP x64 more "profitable"?

My point is that customers want their hardware to work. They don't want to hear a whole pile of excuses of why the drivers aren't ready... they want those drivers NOW! Playing the blame game doesn't get those drivers out the door any faster. Most people couldn't care less about all the politics behind the scenes... they just want their printer to work.

Reply to Zoron

mosquitoguy; I known it is very fashionable to bash MS, but for the love of god, use your head and be reasonable. Have you been around for any previous OS release (not only MS)? Have you even used Vista? Or have you just read a few FUD articles and decided to hop on the bashing bandwagon? I can show you a screenshot of a 1080p WMV clip running using an average of 15-17% CPU (with plenty of other aero windows open), but I doubt that could change you opinion. I can show you screenshots with Vista idling at 0-2%, but again I doubt you are really interested.
Your PC doesn't work right, so IT MUST BE VISTA. You tried it for 5 minutes, with some beta drivers and the wrong codec, it didn't work, so IT MUST BE VISTA'S DRM slowing you down. You are the prototype of people who should NOT make their career in the computer bussiness because you are either too lazy or too ignorant to go trough a process of elimination to solve a problem, instead blaming it on MS like everyone else.
Go inform yourself before you place the blame on something that, by using simple logic, is unlikely to be the main culprit. Again, if you think the only thing Vista has going for it is DX10, then you obviously haven't spent more than 5 minutes using it, because there are plenty of things that, when used properly, can dramatically increase productivity, reduce office downtime at increase application performance (sounding like a PR guy now, I know...). The aero interface alone, while also looking pretty, has really improved multitasking in my case (using a lot of graphical/3D apps). On top of that, pricing for Vista has been in line with every previous MS OS, and if you didn't know already, OSX doesn't come cheap either (and for the price difference that does exist between the two, Apple isn't shy in making that money elsewhere, ie by charging twice the money for the EXACT SAME HARDWARE that resides in my PC). Linux may be free, but I tend to use my PC to run apps/games, not just one 'incredibly efficient' OS with nothing to run on it.
If you think that Vista is the only OS that uses DRM, then think again, because Apple has made their great comeback not in small parts due to DRM (iTunes/iPod), and as long as people buy DRM infested HD media, any OS that want's to offer compatibility will have to employ that DRM.
Here's the ting; If I have a PC problem I tend to try and FIND OUT WHAT THE PROBLEM IS, so I can fix it, I don't go shouting on forums, quoting dubious articles in an effort to put blame on something that may not be the problem at all. If your PC is hogging resources, and if you REALLY wanted to solve that problem, then you wouldn't wipe the harddrive and install a (possibly illegal) different OS (for some reason the lack of WGA in XP64 cuts it a lot more slack in the (horrendous) driver support area, I wonder why) and call that a 'solution', only to cry foul on these forums. You would check which processes are running high CPU loads and update your apps/drivers/codecs to see if that improves the situation. If 'evaluating Vista as a whole' means; 'mmm, this doesn't work right, screw this, I am going back to XP and tell everyone Vista will mean the end of the world as we know it' then I think your opinion is worth squat. If you cannot accept other users' good intentions in helping you with your particular problem (providing alternative solutions), then I think your opinion is worth squat.
In the end of course it is up to you, but I get the feeling that your only interest is in 'debunking' other peoples' opinions, not in actually discussing the features and performance of Vista in a way that allows other people to help you improve your particular experience when using that OS.

Reply to KwyjiboNL77

Quote :

Gee, I think you got it backwards. It should be the hardware vendors that dictates Microsoft, not the other way around.

Seriously, can you imagine the absolute chaos this would cause? 1 Keyboard maker decides on one set of standards, another uses a whole different set and, as an OS creator, you have to comply with both for literally tens of thousands of peripherals just to make a single OS work. I know that MS has a lot of employees, but imagine the code creation jobs surrounding just this idea alone. That alone would cause a standards competition that would rival the compatibility issues with HD-DVD and BluRay combined.

Reply to pkellmey

Quote :

I can show you a screenshot of a 1080p WMV clip running using an average of 15-17% CPU (with plenty of other aero windows open), but I doubt that could change you opinion.

And I could show you a screenshot of 1080 MPEG2 TS clip at 30mbps bitrate with AAC audio and my CPU is at 60% CPU, but I doubt THAT would change YOUR opinion.

You're funny!

Quote :

Your PC doesn't work right, so IT MUST BE VISTA.

It's running Vista, so gee!

Quote :

You tried it for 5 minutes, with some beta drivers and the wrong codec, it didn't work, so IT MUST BE VISTA'S DRM slowing you down.

How presumptuous. A whole 5 minutes, you say? are you sure? How many post ago did I mention DRM?

Quote :

Here's the ting; If I have a PC problem I tend to try and FIND OUT WHAT THE PROBLEM IS, so I can fix it, I don't go shouting on forums, quoting dubious articles in an effort to put blame on something that may not be the problem at all.

If everybody did that (i.e. fix their own Vista problems), then there'd be nothing negative left to say about Microsoft. Or is that what you want? (have some shares in Microsoft?) I expect *Microsoft* to fix my Vista problems and debug my driver issues. I have enough worries in my life.

Anyway, the rest of your rant appears to be a personal attack on my credibility, which tells me that I hit a nerve (maybe you really DO have a poster of Bill Gates in your bedroom?). This behavior is typical of politicians when they have nothing useful left to say in an argument, so I'll leave you alone now.

Quote :

Seriously, can you imagine the absolute chaos this would cause? 1 Keyboard maker decides on one set of standards, another uses a whole different set and, as an OS creator, you have to comply with both for literally tens of thousands of peripherals just to make a single OS work.

How did you come to that conclusion? If there are 10 keyboard makers with their own standards, and 3 OS companies, the keyboard vendors would essentially be suitors. They would compete for the business of the OS companies, and those who didn't get a share will go out of business. You will end up with 3 OS, each possibly using a different standard for keyboard depending on the marketspace of the OS. If the OS is geared toward gaming, you'll end up with a gaming keyboard, otherwise you'll end up with a generic keyboard. In other words, you will have a CHOICE and perhaps not all keyboards would end up rectangular.

With Microsoft as is, Nvidia can't say, "this driver specification sucks and we won't implement it" -- because without Microsoft, they would go out of business since, afterall, virtually every PC game out there runs on Windows. Had there been competition, Nvidia could've easily said, "screw you. we'll vote for the other guy."

Reply to mosquitoguy

Quote :

And I could show you a screenshot of 1080 MPEG2 TS clip at 30mbps bitrate with AAC audio and my CPU is at 60% CPU, but I doubt THAT would change YOUR opinion.

WMP doesn't play TS files without external codec (IE Purevideo), so you might wanna check that first.

Quote :

It's running Vista, so gee!

And that is the only thing that is different? In other words, you have installed the same (XP) drivers, the same apps (without checking compatibility)? You are ignorant...

Quote :

How presumptuous. A whole 5 minutes, you say? are you sure? How many post ago did I mention DRM?

Well, you were the one quoting the 'cost analisys...' article as reference.

Quote :

If everybody did that (i.e. fix their own Vista problems), then there'd be nothing negative left to say about Microsoft. Or is that what you want? (have some shares in Microsoft?) I expect *Microsoft* to fix my Vista problems and debug my driver issues. I have enough worries in my life.

Well YOU were the one that mentioned that Vista came preloaded on your PC, so MS is NOT the one you have to look to for support, contact the OEM instead, as per License agreement. Oh, and fixing someone else's buggy drivers, I think that should really be Microsoft's responsability, don't you think? ( :tongue: sarcasm, in case you failed to grasp that).

Quote :

Anyway, the rest of your rant appears to be a personal attack on my credibility, which tells me that I hit a nerve (maybe you really DO have a poster of Bill Gates in your bedroom?). This behavior is typical of politicians when they have nothing useful left to say in an argument, so I'll leave you alone now.

You lost credibility when you blamed Vista for a problem that you failed to research properly, and got all defensive about when asked for specifics in an attempt to help you solve it. Talking about politicians' behaviour, a certain war in Iraq, with WMD as an excuse come to mind here.

Quote :

How did you come to that conclusion? If there are 10 keyboard makers with their own standards, and 3 OS companies, the keyboard vendors would essentially be suitors. They would compete for the business of the OS companies, and those who didn't get a share will go out of business. You will end up with 3 OS, each possibly using a different standard for keyboard depending on the marketspace of the OS. If the OS is geared toward gaming, you'll end up with a gaming keyboard, otherwise you'll end up with a generic keyboard. In other words, you will have a CHOICE and perhaps not all keyboards would end up rectangular.

There is plenty of choice out there for OS, and if it bothers you that much, you can always go to OSX, Linux, Unix, Sun Solaris etc. OSX dictates their hardware architecture to hardware vendors (a lot more tightly than MS, I might add), and so do the others. If you remember the 1980's that you would know that a hardware vendor pushing its own standard is a nightmare compared to universal standards and guidelines provided by the OS. And since a big part of the bussiness of ATI/nVidia is playback of HD media/content (according to their advertising), I would doubt that they will be the ones to protest.

Quote :

With Microsoft as is, Nvidia can't say, "this driver specification sucks and we won't implement it" -- because without Microsoft, they would go out of business since, afterall, virtually every PC game out there runs on Windows. Had there been competition, Nvidia could've easily said, "screw you. we'll vote for the other guy."

As a matter of fact, both nVidia and Ati owe their existance largely too MS and its DirectX standardization, so what makes you believe that ATI/nVidia would vote 'for the other guy'? Moreover, Apple's recent succes can be largely attributed to their move away from proprietary hardware, and their move to generic PC parts like nVidia/ATI/intel. And with Open standards out there like OpenGL, OSX should be just as capable as a gaming platform as Windows. Then why don't they all 'Vote' for the other guy and 'cast off these schackles' and live happy and free with 'the other guy'? The competition is there, but so far it has failed miserably to offer a good alternative to a gaming environment, is that the fault of MS? Or ATI/nVidia maybe? No wait, it must be Sony and Nintendo with their diabolical PS3/Wii, wo are making it impossible for the competion to offer a good platform...Or maybe, just maybe, they just aren't interested in offering a gaming platform, but yet are complaining about a MS monopoly.

Reply to KwyjiboNL77

Quote :

They would compete for the business of the OS companies, and those who didn't get a share will go out of business.

Why are you intent on running companies out of business? Why not say that as long as you follow the rules, everyone can play in the sandbox? Your restrictive model leads to less innovation (in this case because everyone is out of business), not more. If I meet the minimal standards, it still leaves me the ability to add functionality without a required re-write of the OS. So if I am a small company with a small market and have unique functionality for gaming, I can compete with the big guys who would otherwise literally out-produce me to extinction in every market (which is what every OS would naturally cater to). Everybody wins - in this case, the numbers reach into the tens of thousands of winners.

Reply to pkellmey

Quote :

They would compete for the business of the OS companies, and those who didn't get a share will go out of business.

Why are you intent on running companies out of business? Why not say that as long as you follow the rules, everyone can play in the sandbox? Your restrictive model leads to less innovation (in this case because everyone is out of business), not more. If I meet the minimal standards, it still leaves me the ability to add functionality without a required re-write of the OS. So if I am a small company with a small market and have unique functionality for gaming, I can compete with the big guys who would otherwise literally out-produce me to extinction in every market (which is what every OS would naturally cater to). Everybody wins - in this case, the numbers reach into the tens of thousands of winners.The facts of life are clear at this time. Microsoft is a MONOPOLY and until it is broken apart, torn asunder, thrashed into oblivion and reduced to fine particles nothing at all will change. This post is about some sort of dream state.

The GOVERNMENT is allowing corporations to have more power now than at any other time. Microsoft dominates operating systems, office suites, DirectX, browsers, etc. Apple relied on Microsoft for 150 Million smackers back in 97 and Gates can't even allow Jobs to have his own area with the iPod. Microsoft intends to dominate everything by OWNING the SANDBOX. Microsoft has already fouled up the works with rebrands of standards. If they could HTML would be known as MSHTM to have things as cloudy as possible.

Microsoft now sits on top of ACCS LA and can dictate the rules to all vendors. Microsoft has made PARTNERS of Intel, IBM/AMD/ATI, Sony, etc. so that pretty much wraps the whole thing up as a new stream of mega bucks. Microsoft even intends to implant Vista into a Zune phone and Gates wins regardless of you getting a Zune or iPod. The DMCA has created what amounts to a MEGGA CORPORATION of all of the members.

The objective of all of this is to get you to waste as much of your money as possible and to be dependent on the MS MEGGA CORP for all things DIGITAL. The only way this can be nullified is to STOP BUYING ALL OF THEIR CRAP. Many people are disgusted by corporate America and Microsoft’s power grab at our expense.
Having standards would be great but we consumers need to send a message since our standards should be greater than even Microsoft’s. The best and only true weapon that a consumer has in this type of situation is to spend the money earmarked for any AACS LA/DRM/Vista/Hollywood sort of product on a nice warm Bahamas vacation (or anything else). This would at least force some lower prices but people are in a rush to BURN up their money and fail to contemplate what may happen by supporting things that we don’t need, don’t want and should not even have to think about!

PS: Last night I formatted my trial Vista system and setup an XP Pro/Mandriva dual boot system. I didn’t even bother doing the Vista 30 DAY RE-ARM. I added Beryl environments to 64 bit Mandriva, Open Office, Thunderbird, Firefox, etc. and now when I close a window or quit an application my windows burst into flames. There is a gadget bar and motion wallpaper that I could use if that sort of thing “did it for me” but I need a secure operating system that allows me to run my applications. The applications are what I want to do on my computers not jerk around with an operating system.
Think about it; you spend extra cash on Vista Ultimate so that you can #1 have a media cop and #2 have a lame MS application like WMP11 or IE7 or Media Center or Product Activation or Dream Scapes or……
See what I’m saying??

Reply to Alpha_Magnum

Quote :

Why are you intent on running companies out of business? Why not say that as long as you follow the rules, everyone can play in the sandbox? Your restrictive model leads to less innovation

Whose rules? In this case, Microsoft makes the rules, and others have to follow them. Innovation only exists if the rules encourage competition on a wide scale. Nvidia and ATI are interchangeable brands because they both implement their drivers exactly the same way according to Microsoft's specifications. They're doing exactly as they're told, so there's NO innovation here.

Graphic chip makers know their hardware best, so ideally, it is Nvidia and ATI who should be coming up with the driver specifications, designed specifically AND optimally for their hardware. If Microsoft wants graphics to be encrypted with AES, NVidia/ATI should have the freedom to say, "this will kill performance and decrease our profit margins, so we won't do it." -- i.e. graphic chip makers should do what they do best (period) and NOT be concerned or dragged down with political/social issues like protected content/drm. If Microsoft wants a graphic card with encryption, they can build one themselves with the billions they have in the bank.

The fact that Microsoft is essentially saying, "we present Vista! but what? you want *stable* drivers? you gotta ask Nvidia for that!" is a big "screw you" to the Vista customer. Ensuring driver stability is Microsoft's responsibility because it's THEIR operating system and *proper integration* with the differing hardware vendors is THEIR responsibility, not the end-users.

As far as companies going out of business, that's all theory anyway. Practically, smaller companies who are innovative & perform well are typically bought by bigger competitors.

Reply to mosquitoguy

Quote :

If Microsoft wants a graphic card with encryption, they can build one themselves with the billions they have in the bank.

Oh, I get it - you essentially want everyone to go back to "only runs on IBM if made by IBM". Great idea, that nearly killed Apple and did kill several other OS competitors to get us to where MS is the lonely top gun on the market today because they allowed diversity. Give me this OS that maintains standards, is not reduced to BSODs because of bad hardware implementation, yet most hardware manufacturers on the market are supported, thank you very much. If you want to say that the whole market is some part of a MS conspiracy, I'm sure someone will listen to you somewhere - however, your market is limited which is what you apparently want.

Reply to pkellmey

Quote :

Oh, I get it - you essentially want everyone to go back to "only runs on IBM if made by IBM".

I don't see your point. Whether my graphic card is made by Nvidia or Microsoft, DirectX only runs on Windows -- at least if you exclude the pathetic porting attempts on Linux. The effect is the same then and now since Microsoft dictates everything to everyone wrt Windows.

What you're saying is already true to a large extent when it comes to Apple--- only runs on Apple if made by Apple. The difference between Apple and Microsoft is that when you buy a MAC, it WORKS, Period. You don't need to muck around with drivers and whether that video chip is fully compatible with the latest MacOS. In other words, you don't *waste your time* fixing your computer.

BTW, as far as Vista goes, you don't need a bad hardware implementation to BSOD. Just install iTunes !!

Reply to mosquitoguy

Quote :

Microsoft dominates operating systems, office suites, DirectX, browsers, etc.

In 2000, what other Operating Systems were readily available for users to go to the store, purchase, and put onto their computers?

What about office type suites? Lotus 123 was horrible and thus pulled.

DirectX? Do some research on DirectX and you'll figure out why Microsoft controls it.
Hint:

Quote :

Before co-founding Catalytic, Engstrom spent 8 years at Microsoft as a General Manager. During his tenure at Microsoft, Mr. Engstrom co-invented DirectX, the technology that brought games to Windows and inspired the Xbox.

Browsers.
What was available in 2000 for browsers? Netscape died down because of their own errors. I liked netscape. I didn't like the crap they were doing in their browser. The hidden messages left in their code hit the news and thus brought forth their ultimate death.
What other browsers were readily available? How did you get a browser if you didn't already have a browser?
I remember going out and grabbing CDs at stores to get the new version of IE.
AOL.. hey, they were good but they kept adding too much to their interface.. but not everyone use their proprietary software.

The fact of the matter is that Microsoft makes their software widely available. Seems everyone else is trying to make a buck off it before you can even use it.

Come on.. do some research before you start spewing stuff forth.

Reply to riser

Your argument against Mac and Windows is flawed.

Mac computers have a strict hardware requirements. You can't go out and pick out your own motherboard, video card, NIC, etc. You buy what they give you.

Microsoft is open to any hardware. When you have problems with drivers and BSOD after you installed that video card, its not Microsoft's problem. They work to resolve it but you need to understand that Microsoft had nothing to do with it.

Here's how it works. Microsoft creates an OS, hands it out to hardware vendors. Gives them the code, all that great stuff. They say "hey, now make your drivers work with our software."

When drivers error out on Windows, its not the fault of Microsoft. Its the fault of the hardware vendor not doing a good job in creating their drivers. But everyone faults Microsoft because its the cool thing to do. Fault your hardware company for rushing.

Last time I tried, I never had a problem when using Microsoft drivers on any computer. I only experienced problems when trying to use hardware vendor drivers.

Hmm.. Any time someone has a problem with an Nvidia video card, first thing I recommend is downloading Microsoft's certified driver. You know what? That's solved every problem I've ever experienced in that area.

Its really not commonly known though.. Microsoft wants hardware vendors to keep putting out new hardware. Both make money off that. Hardware companies want to look good, Microsoft can take the blame.

How often does Nvidia update their driver? Do you ever read the release notes to see what they're fixing? Probably not too often but you'll see all the problems they're fixing in previous versions to make it work.

Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse to get out of a speeding ticket. Ignorance when it comes to computer hardware, software, or even Microsoft, is the norm and socially accepted way of life.

Reply to riser

Point by point you had to know...

Quote :

Microsoft dominates operating systems, office suites, DirectX, browsers, etc.

In 2000, what other Operating Systems were readily available for users to go to the store, purchase, and put onto their computers?

BeOS who were put under by MS the MONOPOLY

What about office type suites? Lotus 123 was horrible and thus pulled.

Lotus 123 was put under by MS the MONOPOLY

DirectX? Do some research on DirectX and you'll figure out why Microsoft controls it.
Hint:

Quote :

Before co-founding Catalytic, Engstrom spent 8 years at Microsoft as a General Manager. During his tenure at Microsoft, Mr. Engstrom co-invented DirectX, the technology that brought games to Windows and inspired the Xbox.

MS OWNS DX and DX adds to MS’s MONOPOLY POWER

Browsers.
What was available in 2000 for browsers? Netscape died down because of their own errors. I liked netscape. I didn't like the crap they were doing in their browser. The hidden messages left in their code hit the news and thus brought forth their ultimate death.

NS was put under by MS the MONOPOLY

What other browsers were readily available? How did you get a browser if you didn't already have a browser?
I remember going out and grabbing CDs at stores to get the new version of IE.
AOL.. hey, they were good but they kept adding too much to their interface.. but not everyone use their proprietary software.

Federal court ruled MS as a damaging MONOPOLY. MONOPOLIES by their existence prevent competition

The fact of the matter is that Microsoft makes their software widely available. Seems everyone else is trying to make a buck off it before you can even use it.

So you say. This is BS on your part for several reasons. Microsoft ships IE with each and every copy of Windows sold so it is not FREE since you must have Windows. MS faced the DOJ and lost the BROWSER war since IE contributed to the demise of Netscape. Lastly AOL's browser was a joint effort between MS and AOL. AOL was IE5 all branded to look like AOL.

Come on.. do some research before you start spewing stuff forth.

Should I do some research now? Maybe I already did the research or maybe I already lived all through MS’s rise to MONOPOLY GLORY? You support the notion that MS is simply "doing good business" and that makes you just as much of a danger as MS!

Reply to Alpha_Magnum

In style:

BeOS? MS put them out? I think not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BeOS

Lotus 123 was pulled because they wanted to focus more on Lotus Notes capabilities and Notes 123 had too many problems, came out too late, and lacked functionality. IBM pulled it because they didn't want to venture into that market. Check out Notes some time. You'd be amazed by what that program can do.
Lotus is slow to embrace Windows.
By the time Lotus jumped to Windows, Office was already popular and had a better graphical user interface. This was poor business in a time when technology was in a revolution.

(By the way, so far you're only said it, you haven't provided any links or proof yet. Where do you get this stuff?)

DirectX. Um, Microsoft basically created DirectX. IT IS THEIR PROGRAM. YES THEY OWN IT genius. Should they give up what they create? The guy later on started his own company to make money. Capitalism at its finest.

Netscape:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_wars
Netscape was purchased by AOL. Netscape held the market until their product failed. At this time, Microsoft wasn't the monopoly you speak of today. So in fact, the better product of the day won out. Not because Microsoft had more money to put out Netscape.

MS was called a Monopoly, part of it was later overturned, they did what was asked of them. So, according to your statement and the US Justice Department, Microsoft isn't the Monopoly you claim them to be.
Again, I'll site Wiki because its good information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite [...] _Microsoft

Um, AOL's browser is based off Netscape. Please reference links above.

MS is doing good business. Bill Gates is a billionaire, his employees are paid well, his company is successful, Windows is dominate across the world, Microsoft really opened up the internet to a lot of people back in the early start of broad internet access.

Please, show me a single link that says Microsoft is not "doing good business" and its from a legit site.

Now its time for you to listen. You're quick to reply back with your opinion. You put out no links to support yourself or your claims. If you're going to spit out your opinion and expect people to eat it up, you better start posting reference material to back your claim up. Otherwise, you'll continue to have everyone questioning your knowledge, questioning what justifies your stance.

Its a simple thing to do. I'm sure a quick Google will find something to support you.. right? I hope?

Reply to riser

AOL USES IE

DEATH OF OPEN SOURCE WAY BACK PRE BeOS DEATH

BeOS AGAIN AND THIS RELATES TO THE DOJ PRIOR TO THE LAST ONE

Gates and company had an ace up their sleeve, too: The company's spreadsheet, Excel, was designed from the ground up to be Windows-compliant. Conversely, Lotus ... LOTUS 123

DX is GAMING thusly games run on Vista so no free market exists so this perputuates MSes MONOPOLY (no link needed since I never disputed that MS owned DX. I pointed out that MSes monopoly is stronger due to DX)

Ellison: Oh my God, Microsoft killed Netscape!

US vs MICROSOFT one can only imagine what happened thanks to Bush and the Neocons.

Reply to Alpha_Magnum

Quote :

DX is GAMING thusly games run on Vista so no free market exists so this perputuates MSes MONOPOLY (no link needed since I never disputed that MS owned DX. I pointed out that MSes monopoly is stronger due to DX)

You do know that there are games that can run on both the Open GL system, and DirectX? But the standard is DirectX. Most games are built for DX. Explain that.

Reply to dasickninja

Windows XP vs. Vista: The Benchmark Rundown - Page 5

Forum Windows Vista : Vista General Discussion - Windows XP vs. Vista: The Benchmark Rundown

Please mind