# Thoughts on Vista



## JLV2k5 (Jan 3, 2008)

I am building a gaming computer this summer and need some suggestions in selecting an Operating System. Some people have been saying that those wise enough should stick with simple XP until something else comes out from Windows. Is this well advised? What are the cons of doing this? Thanks


----------



## massahwahl (Jan 3, 2008)

I see it this way...If you get Ultimate you have so many fewer problems. Thats my opinion, Ive had no problems with Ultimate at all. My sister on the other hand who has basic has had all sorts of problems and compatibility issues. Go with Ultimate or stick with XP.


----------



## zaroba (Jan 3, 2008)

if you use xp you will just have to upgrade later down the road and wont be able to play any games that come out only on directx 10 (developers aren't gonna ignore dx10 forever, still a few more years before the next os comes along).  vista is perfectly fine for gaming, i've used it on this pc since jan and never had problem with drivers, games, or anything else.

if you notice, you will see that nearly all those people who are saying vista is bad are people who can not seem understand that vista uses more ram then xp did and that they have to upgrade there computers ram to compensate.  otherwise it will run slow, just like a new game on an old computer.

nearly everybody that has problems with vista has less then 2gb of ram, everybody with more then 2gb of ram has no trouble with vista.


----------



## funkysnair (Jan 3, 2008)

yep-no problems with vista uses %40 of my ram when surfing net...

would suggest getting 3gig ram or atleast no lowwer than 2gig for sure


----------



## patrickv (Jan 3, 2008)

VIsta is ok, well for some softwares, but if you want to game yeah i suggest vista.
It really depends on what you need, you know, and like Funkysnair said, 2GB will be decent.
but if i were you i will stick with XP and upgrade later, probably when price drops on vista and the SP's (sp2) are officially out


----------



## psaila (Jan 3, 2008)

My computer came originally with XP but I have lately added 1GB of RAM, now I have 2GB and installed Vista Ultimate.  It doesn't give problems.  I use it to surf the internet, office apps, music, videos and games.  No probs with all of these.


----------



## tlarkin (Jan 3, 2008)

ukulele_ninja said:


> I see it this way...If you get Ultimate you have so many fewer problems. Thats my opinion, Ive had no problems with Ultimate at all. My sister on the other hand who has basic has had all sorts of problems and compatibility issues. Go with Ultimate or stick with XP.



This is a huge misconception.  There is no physical differences in the windows kernel on any version.  The differences between basic, home premium, business and ultimate are features.  They lack features, otherwise there is no actual difference, so choosing to own ultimate over home premium does not make a difference.  If it did, as a consumer I would be very angry and feel that I was forced to upgrade.  Even though I already feel that way with vista because they feature limit to bait you into spending more money.

The few major differences between Home Premium and Ultimate are an encrypted file system support, which I advise *NO ONE* on this forum ever use that.  The ability to connect to a Domain level network.  At home do you authenticate to an AD server via LDAP directory?  Most likely not, so thats also not needed.    Ultimate also allows faxing, and a back up feature which is not in home premium.  Otherwise they are the same exact OS.

In all honesty, DX10 really doesn't do anything at this point in time.  There is a public outcry for MS to release DX10 for XP.  There is also a group of developers trying to make an open source version of DX10 for XP.  You can still buy a DX10 card which is top of the line and run your games on max settings in XP.  The only major differences will be in benchmarks.  In actual real time performances, you most likely will not notice a difference, and you will still run your games at max settings.


----------



## zaroba (Jan 3, 2008)

tlarkin said:


> There is also a group of developers trying to make an open source version of DX10 for XP



now that just sickens me.  its like people are actually TRYING to stop hardware from advancing now.  while they are at it, why don't they also make dx9 work for win 95 and/or windows 3.1?  since they are making new stuff work without old tech.


----------



## tlarkin (Jan 3, 2008)

zaroba said:


> now that just sickens me.  its like people are actually TRYING to stop hardware from advancing now.  while they are at it, why don't they also make dx9 work for win 95 and/or windows 3.1?  since they are making new stuff work without old tech.



Well, for arguments sake, there is no underlying technology advance from vista over XP.  Where as 3.1 and 9x are based off an entirely different kernel.  No one is trying to stop hardware from advancing, I think you are confusing your facts.  They are trying to stop the OS from forcing you to upgrade.  DX 10 support could easily be ported over to XP.


----------



## cuffless (Jan 3, 2008)

Ive been using vista since the 1st beta release (must be around october 2006). The only problems i have had is there was no drivers for my old phone (sony ericsson w800i) and no drivers for my printer. If you plan on gaming id say get vista for dx10.


----------



## footballdude2k3 (Jan 3, 2008)

the one big plus that i have heard about vista is that you can use thumbdrives as ram


----------



## tlarkin (Jan 3, 2008)

footballdude2k3 said:


> the one big plus that i have heard about vista is that you can use thumbdrives as ram



This is not a big plus.  Any access to a swap file or virtual memory to a usb device will be lots slower than direct access to RAM.  Also, why would any OS need this feature?  Can't they handle memory management well enough to not add this?


----------



## INTELCRAZY (Jan 3, 2008)

zaroba said:


> now that just sickens me.  its like people are actually TRYING to stop hardware from advancing now.  while they are at it, why don't they also make dx9 work for win 95 and/or windows 3.1?  since they are making new stuff work without old tech.



Yeah if everything was open source, I think technology would move slower... I use Linux but, other software gives me a reason to upgrade...

And, I too think that ReadyBoost is useless... The cache files on my drive got old with me very fast...


----------



## patrickv (Jan 3, 2008)

cuffless said:


> If you plan on gaming id say get vista for dx10.



the one thing i see on this forum is that mostly everyone with vista is just for games.
so that is why you say "it works"
don't you use any other software, for work or anything similar ?

typical example :
corel draw Essentials 3 doesn't work, and that puts me at bay from using vista


----------



## cuffless (Jan 3, 2008)

patrickv said:


> the one thing i see on this forum is that mostly everyone with vista is just for games.
> so that is why you say "it works"
> don't you use any other software, for work or anything similar ?
> 
> ...




I personally dont use my pc for games as my graphics card cant handle any decent ones at good settings. If i was going to get into pc gaming i would get a dx10 card. If i had a dx10 card i would want to utilise dx10 which vista does. I havent had any compatiblity issues with programs. I mainly use my pc for music, internet, photo editing (adobe photoshop) and movies.


----------



## Platinum (Jan 3, 2008)

You should read this thread I just created... may help you decide if you should get Vista or XP...

http://www.computerforum.com/107670-recently-upgraded-vista-xp.html


----------



## INTELCRAZY (Jan 3, 2008)

patrickv said:


> the one thing i see on this forum is that mostly everyone with vista is just for games.
> so that is why you say "it works"
> don't you use any other software, for work or anything similar ?
> 
> ...



Ha! Corel? Is that a joke? Get some Adobe...


----------



## patrickv (Jan 3, 2008)

cuffless said:


> II havent had any compatiblity issues with programs



OMG 
you are so not on planet earth.
you probably think "vista works" right ?
think again.
there's a lot of programs that won't work on vista and that in my view is plain wrong, very wrong idea by MS


----------



## patrickv (Jan 3, 2008)

INTELCRAZY said:


> Ha! Corel? Is that a joke? Get some Adobe...



get a life intelcrazy, the job i do requires corel,just cause corel doesn't work doesn't mean vista is perfect.
try to be more helpful
and yeah i have adobe, no wories


----------



## cuffless (Jan 3, 2008)

patrickv said:


> OMG
> you are so not on planet earth.
> you probably think "vista works" right ?
> think again.
> there's a lot of programs that won't work on vista and that in my view is plain wrong, very wrong idea by MS



What are you on about? I never said vista is perfect. I said *I* have had no problems with programs. I never said that no one else has never had problems either. You shoud re read what people type before you criticize them.


----------



## patrickv (Jan 3, 2008)

cuffless said:


> What are you on about? I never said vista is perfect. I said *I* have had no problems with programs. I never said that no one else has never had problems either. You shoud re read what people type before you criticize them.



actually that was for intelcrazy not you men 
and by the way

Well done Microsoft!
^^^

thats ridiculous


----------



## patrickv (Jan 3, 2008)

ok in response to the OP, i'd say go with XP, while you can do research on google to see the compatibilities and whatsoever.
if somehow you feel that the tasks you want to accomplish can be done on vista then you can use it.

cheers mate


----------



## INTELCRAZY (Jan 3, 2008)

patrickv said:


> get a life intelcrazy, the job i do requires corel,just cause corel doesn't work doesn't mean vista is perfect.
> try to be more helpful
> and yeah i have adobe, no wories



I don't use Corel because it's absolute crap... If I wanted it to run on Vista, I am sure there is a tweak.. There is nothing wrong with Vista, except the community of ppl that surround it, yes, ppl like you who have not tried anything other than the Vista Beta... I don't know what your problem is with other ppl's opinion differing from your's but get over it, jeez, communists live in Asia...



patrickv said:


> ok in response to the OP, i'd say go with XP, while you can do research on google to see the compatibilities and whatsoever.
> if somehow you feel that the tasks you want to accomplish can be done on vista then you can use it.
> 
> cheers mate



A car gets old after 7 years... If you ask me, XP does too.


----------



## patrickv (Jan 3, 2008)

INTELCRAZY said:


> I don't use Corel because it's absolute crap... If I wanted it to run on Vista, I am sure there is a tweak.. There is nothing wrong with Vista, except the community of ppl that surround it, yes, ppl like you who have not tried anything other than the Vista Beta... I don't know what your problem is with other ppl's opinion differing from your's but get over it, jeez, communist's live in Asia...



hey am running full Vista business (see Sig) and


> If I wanted it to run on Vista, I am sure there is a tweak


thanks for the tip.
i didn't say vista is wack or anything am just trying to point out that there are flaws that many people don't want to accept.
i have no problems at all intelcrazy believe me, it just pisses me off to see that people think VISTA JUST WORKS, for me thats a no no.
and about corel, probably your job or company don't need it, there's nothing wrong with corel, if you have a problem with it, you might as well let the Creol Team know, not me ...

cheers


----------



## patrickv (Jan 3, 2008)

INTELCRAZY said:


> I don't use Corel because it's absolute crap... If I wanted it to run on Vista, I am sure there is a tweak.. There is nothing wrong with Vista, except the community of ppl that surround it, yes, ppl like you who have not tried anything other than the Vista Beta... I don't know what your problem is with other ppl's opinion differing from your's but get over it, jeez, communist's live in Asia...
> 
> 
> 
> A car gets old after 7 years... If you ask me, XP does too.



yes very strong point, but MS needs to stop support like they did win98, for XP to go down the line


----------



## Gogey (Jan 3, 2008)

Im using vista now, but its really hard to tell the changes from xp since I came from a 3 year old 2 GHZ pentium 4.  I realise I could get better gaming performance out of XP, but Im not that hardcore that the difference will show.  Now I just gotta pop a gig of ram in.


----------



## tlarkin (Jan 3, 2008)

INTELCRAZY said:


> Yeah if everything was open source, I think technology would move slower... I use Linux but, other software gives me a reason to upgrade...
> 
> And, I too think that ReadyBoost is useless... The cache files on my drive got old with me very fast...



No, this is another HUGE misconception.  It would move faster because the whole world would be compiling code for the source.  The problem is, manufacturers see more dollar signs with closed platforms, therefore they never release source for anything.  All those open source drivers you use for your hardware in Linux, was pretty much reversed engineered by some developer.  No company releases source because they are scared hackers will get a hold of it, or their product will be compromised.  

Big business does not understand the open source market, which makes around 500 million dollars per a year, so there is money involved in it they just don't know how to go about it.  Where as closed source companies make billions.  This is also highly debatable because its hypothetical.  However, there is no way open source would go slower and it would drive business to what is better quality over what you are forced into.


----------



## paratwa (Jan 3, 2008)

INTELCRAZY said:


> A car gets old after 7 years... If you ask me, XP does too.



And if the car still works great after 7 years, why change? Just so you can say you have the newest car out there? That's just plain stupid.

My truck is 7 years old and it only has 70,000 miles on it, it still runs and looks great. But in your analogy I would have to trade it in just because the tires that came with it are no longer made, so I need a new truck to fit the new tires. 

No thanks! 

I will stick to Xp until it is just not worth maintaining, much like my 7 year old truck. And I will pass on the pretty new cars/OS until one comes out that is worth the change.


----------



## mep916 (Jan 3, 2008)

Great. Here we go again...


----------



## INTELCRAZY (Jan 3, 2008)

tlarkin said:


> No, this is another HUGE misconception.  It would move faster because the whole world would be compiling code for the source.  The problem is, manufacturers see more dollar signs with closed platforms, therefore they never release source for anything.  All those open source drivers you use for your hardware in Linux, was pretty much reversed engineered by some developer.  No company releases source because they are scared hackers will get a hold of it, or their product will be compromised.
> 
> Big business does not understand the open source market, which makes around 500 million dollars per a year, so there is money involved in it they just don't know how to go about it.  Where as closed source companies make billions.  This is also highly debatable because its hypothetical.  However, there is no way open source would go slower and it would drive business to what is better quality over what you are forced into.



We could argue that forward and backward all day. My only point is, I heard ppl complaining about a quote by Microsoft about upgrading hardware for newer things.



paratwa said:


> And if the car still works great after 7 years, why change? Just so you can say you have the newest car out there? That's just plain stupid.
> 
> My truck is 7 years old and it only has 70,000 miles on it, it still runs and looks great. But in your analogy I would have to trade it in just because the tires that came with it are no longer made, so I need a new truck to fit the new tires.
> 
> ...



The car doesn't work great after 7 years, the windshield isn't as bright as a newer model, the car also cannot perform with newer fuels... That's 10,000 miles a year, you obviously don't do very much with your car...

Car = computer with XP
Windshield = GUI
Fuels = games

And, I didn't start the Vista argument this time, I made a joke about Corel's bad software and here comes the Vista 'muckrakers' and well, you see the effect...


----------



## Iluvpenguins (Jan 3, 2008)

Vista was the crappiest OS i've ever attempted using. I couldn't stand the interface, nor the incompatibility issues i've experienced. I never got internet while using it, i tried and tried but it wouldn't recognize. Why buy a new car that can't even function right when my old car is fully reliable and hasn't failed me yet? Its like giving up my 2001 porsche for a 2008 Cavalier, it isn't happening.


----------



## quagmondo23 (Jan 3, 2008)

I have my main desktop(2.66ghz dual core, 500gb hdd, 512 sapphire graphics, 4gb ram) set up with Ultimate OEM. I think it is ok, it had compatability issues when I set it up, after a few drivers everything worked ok. Like everyone says the security isn't that great(for world dominating hackers like myself) but we get by. I would recomend Linux over giving Mr. Bill anymore money. I have Ubuntu on my laptop dual booting with xp. Thats my preference. 
Also, if you're building go for OEM. Got mine for a quarter of the normal ultimate.
Hope this helps


----------



## INTELCRAZY (Jan 3, 2008)

Iluvpenguins said:


> Vista was the crappiest OS i've ever attempted using. I couldn't stand the interface, nor the incompatibility issues i've experienced. I never got internet while using it, i tried and tried but it wouldn't recognize. Why buy a new car that can't even function right when my old car is fully reliable and hasn't failed me yet? Its like giving up my 2001 porsche for a 2008 Cavalier, it isn't happening.



I think you are over-exerting the cons.... Did you use the Beta, Basic? I find not enough info from you for your opinion to be viable... Really, can you be serious? A fairly new system having that bad of problems? You wasted money on that GTS, if you aren't gonna run DX10. The interface is so similar to XP it's not even funny, I could get ppl in the mental institution to understand a transition from XP to Vista.

If you installed it correctly, configured it, you should have had no problem. I think in this case we could say, computer is only as good as its user.


----------



## tlarkin (Jan 3, 2008)

INTELCRAZY said:


> I think you are over-exerting the cons.... Did you use the Beta, Basic? I find not enough info from you for your opinion to be viable... Really, can you be serious? A fairly new system having that bad of problems? You wasted money on that GTS, if you aren't gonna run DX10. The interface is so similar to XP it's not even funny, I could get ppl in the mental institution to understand a transition from XP to Vista.
> 
> If you installed it correctly, configured it, you should have had no problem. I think in this case we could say, computer is only as good as its user.



OK, google search vista issues and see how many hits you get and start reading through all the problems.  Just because you have not encountered any issues doesn't mean anyone else has had the same experience.  hell, search these forums here for the amount of vista issues people have.

There were, and still are, plenty of issues with vista and my current hardware I have.  

What does DX10 offer over DX9?  Seriously, produce some real world points that explains how great it is.  I mean you can have a DX10 video card in both an XP and a Vista system and run tons of video games on max settings.  Benchmark wise, sure the DX10 may perform better with vista (however, I doubt it) but that is a benchmark.  They do not reflect real world performance.

It is along the same lines where people make gaming rigs and run RAID 0 and think its actually out performing their system by a ton, but in reality RAID 0 only increases data throughput, so if you aren't reading/writing tons of data at once you don't benefit from it.

There is still NO viable reason and NO performance increase upgrading to Vista.  MS is finally get called out on making its bloated OS.


----------



## paratwa (Jan 3, 2008)

INTELCRAZY said:


> The car doesn't work great after 7 years, the windshield isn't as bright as a newer model, the car also cannot perform with newer fuels... That's 10,000 miles a year, you obviously don't do very much with your car...
> 
> Car = computer with XP
> Windshield = GUI
> ...


That makes no sense.

And I don't do much with XP either except surf and email. I don't play games much anymore, since no new games have come out worth playing. They are just rehash's of old games with prettier interfaces, much like Vista it's self. Actual game play has not changed much at all since duke nukem and the first quake. After you have played them a couple of years it's just old hat.

I used to be a big Unreal Tournament guy. I belonged  to a clan and all of that. But UT3 sucks, Bioshock was decent but got boring fast. Crysis is pretty but got boring fast. So why do I need a new pretty OS that has nothing to offer me.

Even DX10 is a waste at this time. Change for the sake of change is just stupid. I change when there is a reason for change.

I am not, nor have I ever been a person that has to have the newest toy out there. I laugh at the people that are driving $50,000 vehicles but can not afford to put new clothes on their kids, or are so in debt they can't pay off their credit cards.  And all so they can look cool with the newest toys.

If or when Vista becomes a must have, then I will get it. But for now Vista is just a pretty toy that makes people think they are cool by having it. It offers nothing new that is worth it.


----------



## Iluvpenguins (Jan 3, 2008)

INTELCRAZY said:


> I think you are over-exerting the cons.... Did you use the Beta, Basic? I find not enough info from you for your opinion to be viable... Really, can you be serious? A fairly new system having that bad of problems? You wasted money on that GTS, if you aren't gonna run DX10. The interface is so similar to XP it's not even funny, I could get ppl in the mental institution to understand a transition from XP to Vista.
> 
> If you installed it correctly, configured it, you should have had no problem. I think in this case we could say, computer is only as good as its user.



1) It was the Basic edition, not like it matters, they are all pretty much the same except for features.

2) My router has problems, my computer ran somewhat fine with it, oh and i couldn't get some software for it because it didn't support it.

3)This GTS was only $200 used, it was a steal, and most DX10 stuff can be ported to XP, i play Crysis with some very high settings anyhow. Also don't forget that the DX10 cards also improve performance in DX9 games, so it wasn't a waste, better than getting the previous 7 series cards.

4) The interface is somewhat similar to XP's, but it leaves a bad enough taste in my mouth to dislike it.


And I can get a kid in a Special Ed class to realize what you havn't.


----------



## tlarkin (Jan 3, 2008)

INTELCRAZY said:


> We could argue that forward and backward all day. My only point is, I heard ppl complaining about a quote by Microsoft about upgrading hardware for newer things.



See, here is the problem with your logic.  No OS has EVER had this much of an overhaul of requirements.  You look at all versions of Linux, Unix, OS X, etc, and all of them can be ran on systems that are 4 years old, and they run fine.  Most consumers don't know this, and most people are now finally realizing they have alternate solutions.  For the first time in history you are seeing consumer level desktops with Linux pre installed.  This is obviously a move because of the demand of the consumer.  They want an OS that isn't bloated and written very poorly.

I mean you once were saying how crappy mac was and how much better windows was, and now you are finally seeing there are other options.  Windows has so many problems, and I could sit here and list them all.  Not vista, not XP, but Windows in general.  Its not the most popular OS by quality by any means, it is the most popular because of their business model, and how they have pushed their product to both businesses and the consumer.  I honestly think that the server side MS products aren't all that bad, but their desktop OS is the worst out of any other OS out there.

Apple now has 15billion in their bank roll because their sales have rocketed, while every PC company is losing money.  Why do you think that is?





> The car doesn't work great after 7 years, the windshield isn't as bright as a newer model, the car also cannot perform with newer fuels... That's 10,000 miles a year, you obviously don't do very much with your car...
> 
> Car = computer with XP
> Windshield = GUI
> ...



Car analogies do not really reflect what computers can do.  They are very commonly used because most people can relate to cars, where as they can't relate to technology.  I hate using them because of this reason but I do use them because it makes it easier to explain things to those who know nothing about computers or technology.

Our economy and every big businesses model is to always keep the consumer spending money.  Why do you think ipods are still selling?  They are disposable at this point in time.  Why do you think people think they need to upgrade their computers every year or two?  In reality they don't.  People want to throw their computer away when the OS crashes, even though reloading it would fix the problem.  Our linear system of consumerism causes this, and every big company wants us to keep spending and keep buying to keep giving them money.  Seriously, that is how capitalism works, and after WWII that is the system they devised.  The system works in the short term, but in the end it will hurt our economy.  When was the last time the US dollar was worth less than a Canadian dollar?  Well, it is as of right now.


----------



## ThatGuy16 (Jan 3, 2008)

DX10 is better, play crysis in both DX modes. You will want to continue using DX10 

You guys can flame vista all day long, its a great OS. And one of these days you (yourself) will probably find yourself upgrading. Just like windows 2000 users finally found theirselfs going to XP. Im sure the same thing was being argued then about the all wonderful windows XP.

When your using XP for years, and you do a major change such as swapping to Vista, your not going to like it because your so used to XP's configuration. I found myself a little dissapointed in vista the first week of using it, but one i learn my way around. I would never want to use XP again, vista has so much more to offer for me.

Its like the first day of school, no one likes it.


----------



## Iluvpenguins (Jan 3, 2008)

ThatGuy16 said:


> DX10 is better, play crysis in both DX modes. You will want to continue using DX10
> 
> You guys can flame vista all day long, its a great OS. And one of these days you (yourself) will probably find yourself upgrading. Just like windows 2000 users finally found theirselfs going to XP. Im sure the same thing was being argued then about the all wonderful windows XP.
> 
> ...




When Vista becomes a complete must..then sadly I will port over. I skipped over 2000, went from Windows 98 to XP.


----------



## INTELCRAZY (Jan 3, 2008)

tlarkin said:


> OK, google search vista issues and see how many hits you get and start reading through all the problems.  Just because you have not encountered any issues doesn't mean anyone else has had the same experience.  hell, search these forums here for the amount of vista issues people have.
> 
> There were, and still are, plenty of issues with vista and my current hardware I have.
> 
> ...



Bloated drawbacks! I don't care how many problems other ppl had, I didn't have problems, therefore I can promote it. I don't read the forums and regurgitate the topics constantly. Yeah, I know what RAID is, and I actually was gonna apply that to take all 2 secs off my load times But, I didn't... DX10 looks better than DX9, and because the number is higher (10>9), there seems to be reason to believe that it has potential, agree?

My hardware must be Vista's image of perfect then...



paratwa said:


> That makes no sense.
> 
> And I don't do much with XP either except surf and email. I don't play games much anymore, since no new games have come out worth playing. They are just rehash's of old games with prettier interfaces, much like Vista it's self. Actual game play has not changed much at all since duke nukem and the first quake. After you have played them a couple of years it's just old hat.
> 
> ...



I am not one of those ppl, my credit is good  Seemed pretty understandable to me... I like change, change is good. 



Iluvpenguins said:


> 1) It was the Basic edition, not like it matters, they are all pretty much the same except for features.
> 
> 2) My router has problems, my computer ran somewhat fine with it, oh and i couldn't get some software for it because it didn't support it.
> 
> ...



For some reason you don't realize you don't need software for a router.... A good router anyway, and if you know your stuff, you would buy a good router.

I love watching you guys scratch out essays for what I put in one paragraph.


----------



## tlarkin (Jan 3, 2008)

ThatGuy16 said:


> DX10 is better, play crysis in both DX modes. You will want to continue using DX10
> 
> You guys can flame vista all day long, its a great OS. And one of these days you (yourself) will probably find yourself upgrading. Just like windows 2000 users finally found theirselfs going to XP. Im sure the same thing was being argued then about the all wonderful windows XP.
> 
> ...




I can't say crysis is a super great game, but it looks like its pretty much a rehash of every other shooter but with killer graphics.  Crytek is a company that writes game engines that use top of the line hardware and really stress systems.  However, you can run Crysis on a DX10 card on full settings in both XP and Vista.  The only difference is it will be using the DX9.0c API layer instead of DX10, which boasts performance increases but what does it really do?  It only really affects shading and lighting in my opinion and that doesn't make a huge difference, and if you talk about performance as in FPS in some cases DX10 (vista) was slower.

Here is an example

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/lost_planet_dx9_vs_dx10

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,2174758,00.asp

IntelCrazy,

I am regurgitating forums?  What are you doing?  How can you justify your experiences?  At least I explain myself where you just say its better, and I provide proof to back my opinions/arguments.


----------



## paratwa (Jan 3, 2008)

INTELCRAZY;860341
I am not one of those ppl said:
			
		

> Change is good, yes, when that change improves something. But not just for the sake of change. Tell me what changes Vista has made that improved your life or the way you use your computer. And don't say Aero. You can get a form of that in XP and linux.


----------



## INTELCRAZY (Jan 3, 2008)

tlarkin said:


> I can't say crysis is a super great game, but it looks like its pretty much a rehash of every other shooter but with killer graphics.  Crytek is a company that writes game engines that use top of the line hardware and really stress systems.  However, you can run Crysis on a DX10 card on full settings in both XP and Vista.  The only difference is it will be using the DX9.0c API layer instead of DX10, which boasts performance increases but what does it really do?  It only really affects shading and lighting in my opinion and that doesn't make a huge difference, and if you talk about performance as in FPS in some cases DX10 (vista) was slower.
> 
> Here is an example
> 
> ...



You don't regurgitate, wasn't pointed at you, and I have seen it alot on this forum. Justify? Hmm...well I have used it for more than a day and tried getting used to the change.

Oh, no doubt, Vista is a performance-hog.. No argument there... My argument is the bugs that ppl supposedly have. I have seen none... I don't care how much it takes of my system, I have the performance to distribute.. Yes, Crysis is eye-candy and I love the sandbox editor... 

And Lost Planet sucks IMO.. The shaders and lighting help in water reflections... I figured that would easily be noticed with Bioshock between DX9 and DX10.


----------



## Iluvpenguins (Jan 3, 2008)

1) A router is a router, it worked, i don't care if it comes with software or not. Having software or not doesn't justify whether a router is good or not, its whether it performs or fails at it's designated job.

2)What credit do you have exactly? anyone can say they have good credit, give us some reasons

3)I love how we're writing out personal experiences with this OS and you're just trolling, provide some in depth experience of your own

4)Change is never always good, thats like saying "oh, we had a coup d'etat that removed our government, and we are now ruled by the military that shoots us at will".

5)The FX5200 was shittier than the TI 4400, yet it's number is higher. Your logic is flawed.


----------



## ThatGuy16 (Jan 3, 2008)

> I can't say crysis is a super great game, but it looks like its pretty much a rehash of every other shooter but with killer graphics. Crytek is a company that writes game engines that use top of the line hardware and really stress systems. However, you can run Crysis on a DX10 card on full settings in both XP and Vista. The only difference is it will be using the DX9.0c API layer instead of DX10, which boasts performance increases but what does it really do? It only really affects shading and lighting in my opinion and that doesn't make a huge difference, and if you talk about performance as in FPS in some cases DX10 (vista) was slower.
> 
> Here is an example
> 
> ...



My point is DX10 in gerneral is better than DX9, just using Crysis as an example.

Yes you get lower FPS in DX10, but i have noticed the physics and visuals in DX10 are better. I have noticed animations that are in DX10 but do not show in DX9 durring gameplay.

So of course DX10 is going to less FPS, the video card is going to be working harder. But if you want to blame vista for having the abillity to play DX10 even though the user clicks "play in DX10" instead of "play in DX9" , then yes its the opertaing systems fault


----------



## Iluvpenguins (Jan 3, 2008)

ThatGuy16 said:


> My point is DX10 in gerneral is better than DX9, just using Crysis as an example.
> 
> Yes you get lower FPS in DX10, but i have noticed the physics and visuals in DX10 are better. I have noticed animations that are in DX10 but do not show in DX9 durring gameplay.
> 
> So of course DX10 is going to less FPS, the video card is going to be working harder. But if you want to blame vista for having the abillity to play DX10 even though the user clicks "play in DX10" instead of "play in DX9" , then yes its the opertaing systems fault



Well, why keep DX10 only for vista when it can be ported to XP? It'll work there too, and less resources will be used hence better performance, no? Thats just a very dumbed down way of how it'll work, but you can already get the DX10 visuals while playing DX9 with a little patch.


----------



## ThatGuy16 (Jan 3, 2008)

Oh god, are you talking about the BS "Very High" hack for crysis?.. no different, its just Very High in DX9. Just like High in DX9 vs. High in DX10.


----------



## INTELCRAZY (Jan 3, 2008)

Iluvpenguins said:


> 1) A router is a router, it worked, i don't care if it comes with software or not. Having software or not doesn't justify whether a router is good or not, its whether it performs or fails at it's designated job.
> 
> 2)What credit do you have exactly? anyone can say they have good credit, give us some reasons
> 
> ...



Wasn't exactly a series now was it?

My credit: Jeep Liberty, new 2918sq. ft. house in the works, and whatever else I want.... (what did you mean by credit? I was talking financially, PAY ATTENTION!!)

And now you are starting to expose yourself by simply trying to defy my 'logic' with unusual circumstances..

I have been expressing my experiences, I have no problems with it... Other then spending $40 on a new AIO printer but, who cares, I needed a new one...

If it was good and had a good user, it wouldn't have had "problems".

And if you knew what 'good' credit was, you would be thinking about capacity...


----------



## JLV2k5 (Jan 8, 2008)

Can you use a DX10 card on XP operating system? If so , I am assuming that XP cannot utilize the advantages of the DX10 technology, and it would be the same as running the card with DX9. Please reveal the truth to me, Thanks


----------



## Iluvpenguins (Jan 9, 2008)

Yes you can. Xp cannot utilize DX10 though so you can't take advantage of it.


----------



## JLV2k5 (Jan 9, 2008)

Right thats what i thought, thanks.


----------



## speedyink (Jan 9, 2008)

People who like Vista are gonna like Vista.  People who like XP are gonna like XP.  It's as simple as that.  What you should do JLV2K5, is try Vista for yourself and see if you like it.  Borrow a disk or something, install it and try it for the 30 day evaluation period and see how you like it.  I myself love Vista and would never revert back to XP.  Any compatibility issue I had were fixed within a month or two after the release date through updates.  Since then I've had no problems with Vista on my computer, Laptop, or on my brother's or parents computer.  

Why do I like Vista?
-aero, it definately looks a hell of a lot nicer than XP.
-The ability to edit pictures through windows picture viewer.  It's nice for those quick fixes.
-slideshow function in picture viewer.  It looks a lot better than in XP.
-Speed.  Who the hell said that Vista needs 2gb of ram to be speedy?  I'm running on 1.5gb of crap ram and mine's running Vista with no slowdowns at any point (except in demanding games of course).  It actually faster than XP in a few areas.
-DX10.  I saw that argumented many times.  Though small in advances now it has a lot more potential than DX9 will or any "DX10" patch.  I honestly don't see why this couldn't be downloaded for XP, but tough beans I guess.  Just another reason to upgrade
-Love the new Start menu with the search function.  Makes finding things easier than going through explorer.
-3d flip.  It may not be the most useful feature, but it sure looks cool
-live preview on the taskbar.  Makes sorting through open pictures so much easier.

And a bunch of other little upgrades that I'm too lazy to type.

Just my 2 cents on this whole thing.


----------

