Vista and DX10, are you insane ?? - Page 3 - Vista-General-Discussion

Last message on previous page:
"this OS is not designed to be a good candidate for upgrading older systems. This is something of a new phenomenon."

Dvorak: Windows Vista Solves Nothing

"The most interesting by far is that very few people have jumped on the Windows Vista bandwagon. (Duh!) The market share for operating systems is still led by Windows XP, at 83.5 percent, followed by Windows 2000, with 3.9 percent. The Mac OS comes in third, with 3.7 percent, followed by Vista, with 3.5 percent."

When Bad Ideas Go Bust

Reply to nhobo

Register or log in to remove.

All I will say on this is all OS's have had their strengths and weaknesses. Which weaknesses you want to overcome is up to you.

Reply to runswindows95

Here is one for you guys I install Vista Business 64 almost two days after the RTM. Installed loaded up stuff and installed things. Guess what the boot time is about the same actually faster because it's not in indexing mode. Can't do that in XP.

As for gaming I triple boot and in the games that I play CoH and WiC there isn't a 50% not even close may 10-20%. That's my personal experience at home DX9 vs DX10. The 3rd boot is Vista 64 Ultimate, a complete waste of money.

At the office I been running Vista 32 Business about the same amount of time and it certainly improves my productivity. Mainly from the search feature. Could that be added to XP sure but the OS would still slow down over time. As for why business aren't upgrading there is a paradigm shift to vitalization and thin clients going on. Unlike before the technology is there and so is the ROI. Funny in a way how a $140 solid state device might bring down M$. Hey what do I know I've only been in the IT field 15 years.

As for me I would never want to go back to XP nor would I recommend someone with old hardware move to Vista. On the other hand I wouldn't suggest the average person buying a new PC without Vista.

Message edited by bydesign on 10-13-2007 at 06:19:28 AM

Reply to bydesign

I nominate this thread be moved to an appropriate section. No way shape or form about graphics and displays any more.

------------------------------ Intel NWPD Employee. Hawthorn Farm Campus. Navy DEPer, Ship Date: 080122 (YY/MM/DD)
Reply to justinmcg67

Done. :sol:

------------------------------ You need a license to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp (or internet account) - RED GREEN. GA to SK
HD Freedom: 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Reply to TheGreatGrapeApe

Is it possible that the performance difference could be that gaming programmers know all the tricks to DX9, and they're still trying to figure out DX10?

I think all this Vista hating comes from people being afraid to install it and get **** over, so they rely on "MaximumPC" for an opinion.

Reply to Ironsoap

Rusmurf wrote :

I'll keep enoying Vista 64, running flawlessly(did require work), and you can stick with XP.

Everyone in a network environment will switch to vista, far more intuitive then XP ever was.

Vista is so incredibly network friendly it is unreal. This is was something that I have found to be one of the best features of the OS. (I am currently an MIS major so this area of the OS is important for me, lol), but on the gaming thing. I have run a few benchmarks and i see a 5% decrease on 3dmark06, average of 3 - 6 fps gain in source games on vista, and other games that I have not tested have run the same frame wise, but the only reason for me to run them in vista is that they seem more stable. The only problem I have ran into is the occasional driver to game problem in vista and it isnt related to performance, but rather just not letting me open the game. Usually an update or hotfix solves the problem. It does look nicer and has alot of cool features, but what gets it for me is that it seems to multitask better. I have heard that it uses multicore cpus better and this is probably the reason for it. As far as memory goes I find the performance similar to running XP with 1 - 1.5gb of ram (when compared to vista with 2gb) so I havent had problems yet. I just want to run UT3 @ full everything and 60fps. I may goes as far as to get a damn physics card because I just want everything out of that game and engine as possble. lol sry...I just love the game and everyone should go download the beta demo!

Best,

3Ball

------------------------------ ASUS P5Q Pro P45 Motherboard
Intel C2Q Q9550 @ 3.40ghz w/ (8.5x400mhz, 1.2125v, Zalman 9500 & 24+ Hours Prime95 Stable)
6gb G. Skill DDR2 6400 @ 800mhz w/ (5-5-5-15: 2T, 2.04v)
EVGA GTX275 @ 660mhz/1550mhz/2400mhz
Reply to 3Ball

There is no clear answer on this other than perception and what is going in the market place. If a product performs poorly for what ever reason, the market will adapt or go somewhere else. Something is wrong somewhere as i dont want to go vista or apple. But linux is looking better.

Message edited by dsharp9000 on 10-13-2007 at 09:06:48 AM

Reply to dsharp9000

Hi Guys,

I just wanted to post the results of the original post.
As I'm sure not many have actually read the article quoted.

This was just for information as I said, and has turned into a little flame-war, and since been moved to a different topic.

But as I say, the point was to highlight the performance difference between Vista.

Now keep in mind we are talking about testing on High-End PC's here (specs below) so there is no reason for Vista to have such bad results.
The spec given are well above the minimum requirements for Vista, if not even well ABOVE the recommended specs for Vista.

With that said, check out the specs and the results and make your own judgements.

Test Bed:
Intel Core Extreme X6800 (2.93Ghz Quad)
EVGA 680i SLi Motherboard
Corsair 2GB DDR2 RAM

Results:
Company of Heros (XP, Vista)
8800 GTS 640MB - (42.3, 20.2)
8800 GTX 768MB - (52.3, 26.2)

World In Conflict (XP, Vista)
8800 GTS 640MB - (23, 16)
8800 GTX 768MB - (31, 22)

Lost Planet (XP, Vista)
8800 GTS 640MB - (26, 12)
8800 GTX 768MB - (38, 18)

Anyone disagree that is an average 50% dive in performance for an OS running on well over recommended requirements ?

And just for those who still know how to laugh about life,
check out this Vista Video:
http://www.brightcove.tv/title.jsp?title=741891990

Message quoted 1 times
Message edited by bfg72 on 10-13-2007 at 03:58:23 PM

Reply to bfg72

bfg72 wrote :

Hi Guys,

I just wanted to post the results of the original post.
As I'm sure not many have actually read the article quoted.

This was just for information as I said, and has turned into a little flame-war, and since been moved to a different topic.

But as I say, the point was to highlight the performance difference between Vista.

Now keep in mind we are talking about testing on High-End PC's here (specs below) so there is no reason for Vista to have such bad results.
The spec given are well above the minimum requirements for Vista, if not even well ABOVE the recommended specs for Vista.

With that said, check out the specs and the results and make your own judgements.

Test Bed:
Intel Core Extreme X6800 (2.93Ghz Quad)
EVGA 680i SLi Motherboard
Corsair 2GB DDR2 RAM

Results:
Company of Heros (XP, Vista)
8800 GTS 640MB - (42.3, 20.2)
8800 GTX 768MB - (52.3, 26.2)

World In Conflict (XP, Vista)
8800 GTS 640MB - (23, 16)
8800 GTX 768MB - (31, 22)

Lost Planet (XP, Vista)
8800 GTS 640MB - (26, 12)
8800 GTX 768MB - (38, 18)

Anyone disagree that is an average 50% dive in performance for an OS running on well over recommended requirements ?

And just for those who still know how to laugh about life,
check out this Vista Video:
http://www.brightcove.tv/title.jsp?title=741891990

I am not disagreeing with what they recieved, but with my system in my sig on 2 of those games, World in Conflict (demo) and company of heroes my FPS rates are within 2 - 5 of each other on the same settings with my dual boot. Vista most of the time ahead by the 2 - 5 fps in WiC. I dont distrust those results, but i cant disregard my own either! Have tried lost planet other than the demo on winXP and I managed about 20 FPS on my res, so I didnt get it!

Best,

3Ball

------------------------------ ASUS P5Q Pro P45 Motherboard
Intel C2Q Q9550 @ 3.40ghz w/ (8.5x400mhz, 1.2125v, Zalman 9500 & 24+ Hours Prime95 Stable)
6gb G. Skill DDR2 6400 @ 800mhz w/ (5-5-5-15: 2T, 2.04v)
EVGA GTX275 @ 660mhz/1550mhz/2400mhz
Reply to 3Ball

I really don't give a **** about benchmarks. All I care is weather or not it meets my needs. And it does just fine.

I am kind of the go to guy with my friends/family/co-workers, and I have had a lot of people ask me what I think about Vista. Having never have used it, I didn't really have a valid opinion. All I could say was, there are a ton of people that hate it. I decided that the only way to know for sure if it was as bad as everyone says it is, was to buy it myself... So I picked up a copy of Home Premium.

I got into this not really caring if it was good or bad, I just wanted to experience it, and understand it for myself. So many people tell me that it's such a horrible OS. It's a memory hog, or it crashes all the time. It's funny because I used to hear the same thing about XP, and honestly, I have never had a blue screen with XP. So far, Vista has been great, really. I did not run into any driver issues, no glitches or crashes. It's been running very stable for the month that I've had it.

The biggest complaint I hear is about system requirements, mainly RAM. And if you read and understand SuperFetch, then it wouldn't be an issue for you. If you don't want you OS making good use RAM that's not being used anyway, then simply turn it off. I have 1gig of RAM and it runs just fine for me. Of course I don't play the super memory hogs like Oblivion and such.

I guess what I'm getting at is don't just jump on the Anti-Vista bandwagon without ever even using it. Go ahead and hate it, but not because your favorite magazine/website says it's a POS. Just because it's written doesn't make it true.

Reply to dmroeder

Quote :

Makes me wonder why people are so quick to start throwing abuse...

Hmmmmm...

Quote :

and if they think Vista sucks, I'm with them !!

So all you Vista fans, and anyone that overclocks and claims everything is a bed of roses with false benchmarks,
I think it's time to wake up and smell the coffee.

Looks like you're the one that started "throwing abuse" (whatever that means). Now I'm not going to stand here and claim that Vista is God's gift to geeks; however, I'm not going to play Chicken Little and jump to all sorts of conclusions on the basis of one or two articles.

Vista is what you make of it. Some people think it sucks and others prefer it over XP. I'm not going to tell you what you should think... but in MY opinion... you're going a little overboard on the basis of that ONE article. Form your own opinion... don't let others dictate it to you.

Reply to Zoron

Also, if you're comparing DX9 performance in XP to DX10 performance in Vista; you're comparing apples to oranges. (In other words... nice try). Force those games to run in DX9 mode and THEN complain if the benchmarks are different. If you can't do a fair apples to apples comparison, then don't expect anyone to take your results seriously.

(And that goes for MaximumPC as well... it's a shame they couldn't pull their collective heads from their collective butts and realize they were comparing DX9 to DX10 instead of XP to Vista)

Reply to Zoron

08nwsula wrote :

pffft, who needs xp or vista? I still run windows 3.1 and it takes up almost zero resources. I have such an advantage over you noobs.

08nwsula is right, you should all stop your arguing.

------------------------------ Cyrix > Intel + AMD
Reply to decoy26517

Rants are great to get annoying things off your brain. But, here are the facts:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/l [...] fault.mspx

This is the life cycle on licenses for all their windows products, excluding vista. Your going to be FORCED to upgrade eventually...

Until money isn't the object, Microsoft will continue to dominate. Good luck trying to get big titles on a open source OS.

Message quoted 1 times

Reply to w1ngzer0

w1ngzer0 wrote :

Until money isn't the object, Microsoft will continue to dominate. Good luck trying to get big titles on a open source OS.

LINUX ... ???

Message quoted 1 times

------------------------------ VISTA - R.I.P. - Died tragically at the age of 1 day old.
The suspect named 'Bill', was seen running from the scene of the crime
Reply to bfg72

bfg72 wrote :

mitch074
I'm sure you'll all be very disappointed with the first Vista Service pack...

Speak for yourself, I'm happy with Vista the way it is now.

Reply to dmroeder

bfg72 wrote :

LINUX ... ???

I don't see any kind of trend with software devs. Specifically games, making the transition to linux. The majority of the population is still baby boomers. So, moving from, something that took them 2 to 3 years to learn; is very doubtful. Plus, linux is a very very small part of the market. Yah thats great Dell offers ubuntu . But, i tried finding a ubuntu machine on their site and i actually had to DIG through their site to find it. :lol:

The only reason people are having problems with vista, including devs is, its new. It's not like XP where you could use 2000 drivers. It still took even XP a good year to come out with descent drivers. XP beta was more stable then XP release.

Vista x64 i've herd nothing bad about other then the lack of support these companies are giving. They have till 2009 to produce anything so i doubt companies are going to be in a rush.

What did you expect Microsoft to do about their security issue? Throw more crap at XP? i think not.

Until i see software on the box saying "linux" i will stick with windows.

Message edited by w1ngzer0 on 10-23-2007 at 09:11:16 PM

Reply to w1ngzer0

I'm getting a Dejavu of windows XP.

Reply to Rockstone1

I agree with Rockstone. This EXACT same thing came out with XP. Gah, I remember the whole "I am never gonna upgrade my copy of 98! it does everything I need it to do! XP is such a resource hog! my 64mb of memory works perfect with 98 but with XP is is such a drag!"
oie, grow up, realize everything grows, and quit complaining!

------------------------------ [img:11d8277b07]http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/1139/userbar225267uw4.gif[/img:11d8277b07]
ABIT AW9D-Max
E6400 @ 2.8Ghz
2 GB OCZ Gold @ 700mhz (4-4-4-13)
Reply to AlaskaFox

speedbird wrote :

I have not experienced any problems with Vista and I'm sure some might try to shot me down in flames for saying this, but I actually prefer Vista to XP....There I've said it
When benchmarked XP still has the edge in performance for games, but Drivers have come a long way since Vista's release and the performance gap is smaller now. I prefer the more modern looks of the Vista operating system and I find start-up is quicker than XP. XP is still a great operating system, but Vista is not so bad as the hype may have you believe. 'Each to their own' seems like an appropriate statement.

I'll work off of "XP is still a great operating system, but Vista is not so bad.." And I will add into that statement... Vista is not so bad compared to XP considering Vista has not been optimized and patched by M$ for the past 6 years. I don’t know the exact number but I would absolutely consider the amount of stitches and duct tape applied to XP.(Don’t forget XP SP1 was out not even a year later when XP was released, 11 months to be exact) Not only that but your original quote from Michael Brown was from the beginning of August. Since we are in technology forum, 3 months is a moderate amount of time for changes. Not only that though how long do you really plan on holding on to your XP key, eventually the conversion will have to take place. I understand there is a performance hit from XP to Vista but let’s look at it closer. There is a bunch of benchmarks out there with XP vs. Vista stats, I have read them and read some small, some big differences usually dependent upon the game. Overall Vista lost to XP. But by lose do we mean that a game ran in xp smoothly but now ran in Vista is a slideshow? No, either way when Vista Slideshowed, XP slideshowed, when Vista ran smooth XP ran smooth. Does it really matter if you get 10~20 less FPS in Vista when your way above that slideshow 25 fps point? No cause what you see is what you get, smooth. You wouldn't notice the difference if your game was running 80FPS as compared to 60. At least I don’t, but I do know when it starts to go below 25 from the obvious effect, which I believe in Vista wouldn’t change. Vista is not crap, it is just not optimized. If one of you who supports XP over Vista please tell me the number/ratio of XP updates to Vista.

Also to quote mitch47

Quote :

I'm sure you'll all be very disappointed with the first Vista Service pack, and can be mature enough to respect other people’s opinions.

So this is a mature opinion? and I quote the person who started this thread

Quote :

I would take MaximumPC as a very good source of information, and if they think Vista sucks, I'm with them !!

So all you Vista fans, and anyone that overclocks and claims everything is a bed of roses with false benchmarks,
I think it's time to wake up and smell the coffee.

It will not end here though, my video card is coming in next week and I plan on doing a Vista build with it, and I will honestly state my opinion and the performance of my applications/games on Vista.

Reply to bildo123

forgive me if this has been said but..., hands up who didnt have to install more memory when xp came out???

ive not had any trouble with vista since i got it in april, although i admit its not perfect, it runs very well and i play all the latest games without a problem. never had any BSODs and only the odd crash in gameplay and usually thats older games which were on dx 8 or something!

i'm sure the upcoming sp will cure a lot of the 'speed' issues although ive just tested and my vista (premium) os starts up in 39secs and shuts down in 8! i cant do a direct comparison but i'm happy with that tbh and i havent even got top notch memory. just 2 gig of it!

i'm not knocking xp either! its very fast and stable. but so it should be after 6 years and really, vista isnt that far behind in the stability stakes and its fast enough for me! even in gaming the fps doesnt hit me that hard and ive only had slowdown with stalker, but who hasnt?!

Reply to mrbobc

Just curious - Why do people have emotional attachments to an OS? If you want to stick with XP, go for it! Although I made the move to Vista x64 myself, it didn't make me cooler, more intelligent, better looking, or a better lover than when I was on XP. XP has problems and Vista has problems... ZOMG M$ suxx0rz!!!11 =D

Seriously though, Vista is good if you have new hardware and all of your drivers support it. I'm an upgrade whore, so Vista was just an excuse I used to the wife so I could pimp my rig. =D

Reply to munkus

Vista and DX10, are you insane ?? - Page 3

Forum Windows Vista : Vista General Discussion - Vista and DX10, are you insane ??

Please mind