Vista and DX10, are you insane ?? - Page 2

ROFL!!! I had this discussion not long ago. ATI has many of their drivers fixed and very little difference between XP and Vista. Geforce, however, has a fairly large gap between XP and vista. It's still not good, but better then it was before (50% is NOT true anymore-OLD news). SP1 w/directx10.1 is suppose to fix what is broke/promised in Vista (at least 90% of it). I'm waiting to see if the service pack will improve performance. Directx10 is improving. We'll see what happens when the service pack is out.

Edit: and of course, i'll show proof: http://www.firingsquad.com/hardwar [...] /page9.asp

Vista, slowwwwly gaining acceptance. No matter which of the 31 flavors of Vista you choose! Provided you have the resources to run it.

I can do all the "other" things I need on Linux, with half the hardware requirements. I can even do some decent gaming. I don't even have a need for XP anymore, although it is still a fine OS.

IMO Vista was just the usual attempt from MS to sell new hardware for their main customers, the hardware vendors. The actual end user is way down at the bottom of the MS customer list.

With 5 years and billions of dollars at their disposal, there is simply no excuse for Vista. I think the public at large is finally tired of paying to beta test products. This is a good thing.

My Grandma use to talk about XP. What exactly was XP ?

MS sucks.

Actually they sort of admitted it when most of the top Vista people left MS immediately after launch. Could have been some "burnout" at play there as well, but I also think they knew what they were about to foist upon the public, and they wanted to be out of the line of fire.

Theres complaining and then theres just being a bit pathetic about it, most of guys in here are the latter, there isnt much gaming difference t all vista is infact v.good for a newly released OS, eveyr OS has suffered from thsi in the past.

I expect in 2009 or whenever the new one will be out nad people will be saying omg dont use that stay with vista.


But yeh, if you dont ever want to use DX10, stay with XP, but dont call youreselves gamers or anything if you do.

I have had Vista 64Bit installed for 9 months and I have NEVER had a blue Screen or had to "Reinstall". I love Vista. When XP came out it was the same stuff

"Its a memory hog"

"its slow"

"its Crap"

"Microsoft should have not released a beta as retail"

Just because you can read a magazine you know every thing about computers and operating systems. Just because some people say

“Vista wont run on my 486 DX4 100. with 16Megs of ram, 210Meg HD, Ensoniq Soundscape, and my S3 Virge VLB video card” (My smoking computer in the day)


Alot of people dual boot, then they find out Vista is more stable and better then they thought.

TRY IT BEFORE YOU RANT,

A magazine is not gospel.

1Haplo

Sure is. When Vista slowed my system to a crawl I went back to good old XP Pro. Thankfully it didn't cost me a penny, only some time.

Actually he comes off as a guy who is cautioning others against dumping time and money into a potentially dead-end experience. Just because something is new doesn't mean it's better. The deluge of "fixes" for Vista and the OEM "downgrades" to XP for frustrated users clearly makes the point, as does M$ extending the life of XP ... Not that it is here or there, but in this thread it's the guys who've just plunked down a bunch of cash on the new overhyped OS that are getting upset.

For me progress is NOT having to learn a new OS that doesn't provide better functionality, NOT having to buy a mountain of new hardware to make a new OS run almost as fast as the last one, NOT having to download a continuous stream of bug fixes and security updates to make a new OS work "properly", etc.

And despite the fact the the billions M$ spends on advertising give the media has a vested interest in NOT rocking the boat (and this is just the tip of the iceberg):

Vista: 150 problems, 0 solutions
Windows Vista Problems Still Deter Adoption
Boycott Windows Vista
Windows XP gets five month life extension amid Vista problems

"Windows VISTA, see the difference." I did, and that's why I'm running XP Pro.

If Vista crawls on your system I cant see how your opinion is even valid until you go spend some money on some new hardware. It would have to be a pretty rubbish rig to "crawl" on just an OS, I wouldn't like to game on your system.

Oh btw, windows 2k uses even less recources then XP!!! So if you go back to taht itll go even faster! Would you? Hell no, which sais your biased and are just using this point as something in your argument.

I actually find when repairing a network connection its a hell of a lot mroe successful then XP. I sometimes found myself on internet on Vista while my bro and dad on XP were still trying to fix theirs lol.

I found th eproblem reporting a silly idea though. Search for 80problems.. no solutions... ok.. next week.. now got 170 problems.. no solutions, next neek got even more and no solutions!

@Hatman: under Linux, solving a network connection problem is extremely difficult: you first gotta have a problem in order to fix it.
The last problem I had was back when Nvidia still provided a binary network driver for their Nforce ethernet. Ever since they dropped it (beginning of 2006) and started supporting the forcedeth driver, Internet connection is:
- plug RJ45 cable in,
- wait 10 seconds,
- browse.
At worst, in case of complete network reinit (rebooted DHCP and restarted bridge, and power cycled switch...) it requires: dhclient.
End of Story.

Vista: reboot everything, reinstall ethernet driver each week, wait 5 minutes for network to be up.
XP had at least the great idea to rip off the BSD TCP/IP stack, which just worked.

Now, wifi in Vista is supposed to be better than it was under XP (tell that to my friend, who has to reset his wifi's encryption key and channel assignment every week so that Vista MAY see his wifi bridge). Personally, under Ubuntu, installing wifi was as difficult as that:
- find somewhat supported adapter (a 30 bucks Belkin)
- plug adapter
- enter WPA key.
The same, under Vista:
- install driver first
- reboot
- reinstall driver, due to 'install error'
- reboot again
- plug adapter
- go take a leak, wait some more for it to be detected
- locate, download and install driver update, as the current one hasn't taken hold
- reboot
- plug adapter (again)
- go grab a beer,wait some more
- reboot
- enter WPA key
- reboot (Vista has detected it required an update to properly use WPA)
- browse.
Same hardware. Different results.

And people say that hardware support in Linux sucks...

If you have to reset and re-install anything I dont believe tahts a problem with vista, ti works fine with me and thats 64bit version, as worse as it can get as far as drivers are concerned!

Wireless had a few problems though I do admit, I use a cable now.

hatman:

So what's your point, after defending it to the death, you just quoted you're an XP user !!

1haplo:

AGAIN for those people that did NOT read the whole thread, as usual. I did state that I have used Vista myself.

nhobo:
Someone with an open mind ;-)
Glad someone is not taking things so serious ...

bfg72,
You still haven't stated what your gpu is, sorry I forgot you don't have one.

OMG what a sucky OS. People are going to have to buy whole new computer and even then the OS sucks up so much of the computer resource that people can't even read their email.

I think I have captured the entire thought process that was discussed about Win95..... and Win98 ..... and WinMe ...... and Win2000 ...... and WinNT ..... and WinXP ...... and now for Vista.

The more of these FUD posts that I read, the more that I believe the OS is succeeding.

I think too many people have gotten used to the crap that Microsoft have been dishing out over the past decade. The simple fact is that WinXP is faster than Vista, has better drivers, has more compatible programs, and has much less problems. Simply put, WinXP is still better than Vista.

Iron out the bugs, improve the drivers, get a program which actually runs better on Vista then maybe I can be convinced that Vista is worthwile. If Crysis runs better on Vista then you have some ammo to shoot with, at the moment there is nothing, XP is faster and more reliable than Vista.

So, what you guys are saying is that a brand new OS has more updated drivers that support a wider range of newer hardware than a 6 year old OS does out of the box? That's impressive.

I'll stick to XP until Windows 7 comes out. Hopefully that will be the OS to move to. If not I'll go with Linux.

So, what you guys are saying is that a brand new OS has more updated drivers that support a wider range of newer hardware than a 6 year old OS does out of the box? That's impressive.

I'll stick to XP until Windows 7 comes out. Hopefully that will be the OS to move to. If not I'll go with Linux.
[/quotemsg]

No it wont you noob, when windows 7 comes out ull be syaing its crap and moaning and going back to vista, it happens with every OS release.

Thank you for making my point EXACTLY -> Vista is a hardware hog. I'm not going to waste money on a hardware upgrade to run an overhyped under-performing OS that doesn't provide me with any benefits. I don't consider hardware issues, performance problems, bugs and security issues "features".

As for my system, I'm curious as to how you can talk about something you know nothing about. Nah, strike that. It actually makes perfect sense.

2K was actually much slower than XP Pro. Load times approached absurdity. XP is also far more stable than 2K. In XP, applications crash. In 2K, the OS crashed. Those are tangible benefits that Vista did not provide for me.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Ah! Not in the way one would think. Budgets and knowledge are often inversely proportional. It's easy to "solve" a problem by throwing money at it. It is much more challenging to make the best out of limited resources.

Example: computer runs too slowly.

High budget fix: Thrown in some new hardware (primary requirement: money).

Low budget fix: Learn how to tune your computer's performance (primary requirement: brains).

After reading this excellent thread I have observed that we appear to be divided into two camps here. Those who hate Vista, and those who are easy to please.

Have been very amused with this thread, and was going to just read through silently, but this statement got me...
Do you mean to tell me that you can do a fresh install of XP and it runs precisely the way you want it to, and runs at its utter optimum? I've been building my own systems for years now, and have not encountered a single M$ OS that did not require some tweaking and setting to get it to run just the way I wanted it to. Be it user settings, services, drivers, whatever... even XP as it is today on a fresh install with all the SPs needs some tweaking to speed it up, streamline it, and put everything where I want it.

I see the point of your thread (a valid point masking a nice opportunity to start a flame war), but don't tout one OS over the other under false pretext.

Keep the OS talk in the OS forum, or as it applies to games, in the games forum.

Unless you want to talk about how it relates to DX10 and graphics, it doesn't belong here.

PS, I have no love for Vista, but this ain't the place for the thread you've created.

"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