Maybe you should not upgrade to Vista [Archive]

James

11th February 2007, 14:25

If you're a pc gamer and want directx 10 for future graphic improvements, then there's no choice: you have to upgrade to Vista. :(

No, you don't. Don't buy the game. It is very simple. Buy a different game instead.
The manufacturer of the game sitting on the shelves will react, you can count on this. :agree:

EDIT:
Yes folks, you can vote with your purse. It is all about money. If you see a movie on BR you want on HD DVD - write the studio, that they lost a sale. (Same the other way round).
If you see a game you want to buy, but which requires Vista: Write the manufacturer, that they lost a sale.
If you see a shareware program requiring activation: Write the author, that he lost a sale.
If you just buy everything, even if you are forced to do things you actually don't like, you are a stupid lemming who doesn't deserve it better.

Webslinger

11th February 2007, 14:38

No, you don't. Don't buy the game. It is very simple. Buy a different game instead.
The manufacturer of the game sitting on the shelves will react, you can count on this. :agree:

Microsoft isn't going to support directx 10 for XP, which sucks. This is the problem. If they offered
directx 10 for windows xp, I wouldn't switch. Or better yet, if Microsoft got rid of all the DRM and other nonsense
for Vista, I would want to switch.

If you see a game you want to buy, but which requires Vista: Write the manufacturer, that they lost a sale.

It's not that the games won't work in XP. It's that they won't look as good, because XP doesn't support directX 10.
I don't like what Microsoft is doing anymore than you do. But the industry isn't giving hardcore PC gamers any alternative if they want better graphics.
:(

If you want the better graphics, there's no choice. Most developers will be producing games that will work for both directx 9 and 10. But the visual improvements are only going to be available for directx 10 with directx 10 supported video cards.

These are directx 10 screenshots (seriously, take a look at the
pics for Flight Simulator X and Alan Wake):

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=1010840&postcount=1

Why would I want to play inferior directx 9 versions of these games?
No console is going to touch what directx 10 graphics can do for awhile
either.

This is from the Senior Editor of PC Gaming Magazine, which is probably the most
influential PC Gaming magazine in North America:

from http://pcgamer.com/

1/24/07 - More praise for DX10

By Logan Decker, Senior Editor

If you're among the stoic and curmudgeonly crowd that's still not impressed with some of the DirectX 10 screenshots that have been making the rounds on the internet, well, then to hell with you. But I'll concede this: DirectX 10 has to be seen in action to be really appreciated.

Take motion blur, for instance, an effect facilitated by DX10 that's admittedly tough to work up a boner over. After enjoying a hands-on session with a level from Crysis, I'm convinced.

Slight motion blur is applied whenever you're in motion (including when you throw an object or get whacked in the head), and increases in intensity the faster you move (and can obscure almost everything when you're running at top speed in your "Nano Muscle" suit).

It doesn't sound like much because motion blur is intrinsic to our natural vision; we don't notice it because we're so used to it. Crysis mimics this natural blur to spectacular effect, and when I recently played Far Cry and Prey while benchmarking today, I noticed that movement inside these games appeared less realistic, flat, and, paradoxically, static, now that I've come to expect a game to show me images that more closely resemble how I see the real world.

I spent $5000 getting my eyes fixed with Lasik surgery. $600 for a DirectX 10 video card and $50 for Crysis to shoot down a helicopter and watch it streak to the ground before detonating into a ball of flames, smoke, and shrapnel? Sounds like a good deal to me."

James, it's just a bad situation right now for PC Gamers who hate DRM. None of us want Vista. We want the improved graphics that are offered by Directx 10.

James

11th February 2007, 15:03

Microsoft isn't going to support directx 10 for XP, which sucks. This is the problem. If they offered
directx 10 for windows xp, I wouldn't switch. Or better yet, if Microsoft got rid of all the DRM and other nonsense
for Vista, I would want to switch.

If you want the better graphics, there's no choice. Most developers will be producing games that will work for both directx 9 and 10. But the visual improvements are only going to be available for directx 10 with directx 10 supported video cards.

You should be aware that there is no real technical reason for DX10 not running under XP or Windows 2000.
Microsoft doesn't *want* this, because they *want* you to buy Vista.
If you do, they have succeeded. If nobody does, the software publishers will beat Microsoft long and hard to release DX10 for XP.

Okay, I am living in a dream world... :o

DetroitBaseball

11th February 2007, 15:06

I bought Vista the first day it hit the stores. No problems on it, works good. Slysoft products have no problems.

rolling56

11th February 2007, 15:07

Okay, I am living in a dream world... :oIf all in the article is true.............Hopefully it will self destruct:clap:

Webslinger

11th February 2007, 15:10

You should be aware that there is no real technical reason for DX10 not running under XP or Windows 2000.
Microsoft doesn't *want* this, because they *want* you to buy Vista.
If you do, they have succeeded. If nobody does, the software publishers will beat Microsoft long and hard to release DX10 for XP.

I agree with everything you wrote here. I am very upset Microsoft won't release directx 10 for XP. But I'm just one guy.

And there are a lot of lemmings out there. ;) So what's one guy against all the lemmings and Microsoft going to accomplish?

I haven't moved to Vista yet, for most of the reasons mentioned. But at some point, I think I probably will, unless someone
gets directx 10 to work with XP. Maybe that someone could be James. ;)

Charlie

11th February 2007, 15:44

It sounds like if you knock out the use a windows defender and other MS stuff that you can get free IE antivirus ect... That it will still leave a string to be seen by MS? Meaning backing up a movie? Am I wrong here? I have no use for games but do want to see HD content in it's perspective quality picture, I mean I know anydvd hd will knock the needed hardware out but still. Since the fine print of their eula or whatever you call it. It seems that they should of added that if you want to watch HD content movies then the only way is vista, might as well dropped that bomb too. I know most of this thread is about gamers but I'm wanting to see and hear more from you on HD content reguardless if you have anydvd or anydvd hd on your PC. Will there be a degrade if you don't use vista and D10 with the appropiate other hardware?

Webslinger

11th February 2007, 15:50

I'm wanting to see and hear more from you on HD content reguardless if you have anydvd or anydvd hd on your PC. Will there be a degrade if you don't use vista and D10 with the appropiate other hardware?

If you have an HTPC you'll want to stick with XP due to the capacity to use Reclock (and possibly an issue with Vista and HDCP compliance that Vista strictly enforces); I suspect Reclock is mostly an issue for PAL playback. The point I made about DirectX 10 really only has bearing on games, not HD DVD. Basically, Vista is just going to make a lot of people's lives more difficult, including James'.

The only directX 10 video card on the market right now worth looking at is the Nvidia based 8800 series, but, of course, both ATI and Nvidia will be producing other stuff this year.

Charlie

11th February 2007, 15:55

Webslinger

11th February 2007, 16:07

This is what is going on in my head. I'm building a new PC with all the hardware requirments to play if wanted HD movies be it BD or HD-DVD. Will I be able to do so and still run just XP just fine

I can't say for sure about BD, but I believe so, yes. James may have a better answer for you.

or is there going to be a degrading issue due to not using Vista?

Not that I'm aware of. If you're buying HDCP compliant monitors and video cards, then you should be able to use Vista without issue as well.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "degrading issue".

Charlie

11th February 2007, 16:22

I can't say for sure about BD, but I believe so, yes. James may have a better answer for you.

Not that I'm aware of. If you're buying HDCP compliant monitors and video cards, then you should be able to use Vista without issue as well.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "degrading issue".

What I mean by degrading issues is if I buy all the compliant hardware to watch HD content on my PC which really would be very rare will there be a degrade in the quality of sound and picture if I was to not own anydvd hd and not use Vista? Yes I do own but trying to gain info on this for me as well as if there is any other curious user wanting to know. Another words will there be a quality issue if I was to have all the compliant hardware and use XP Pro?

Webslinger

11th February 2007, 16:26

What I mean by degrading issues is if I buy all the compliant hardware to watch HD content on my PC which really would be very rare will there be a degrade in the quality of sound and picture if I was to not own anydvd hd and not use Vista?

No. Anydvd Hd will not improve sound or picture quality--and neither will Vista (for movies).

Charlie

11th February 2007, 16:30

I thought you were one that could answer. Thanks

Webslinger

11th February 2007, 16:37

I thought you were one that could answer. Thanks

Well, there's a new audio stack in Vista, but my impression is that, as always, you're limited by your source material and your hardware.

visit http://www.dasmirnov.net/blog/2006/09/04/windows_vista_improvements_audio_process

This to me is not actually improving the sound quality. It's software processing (like what soundblaster does with its sound control panel/css stuff).

I sincerely doubt you'd be losing out on picture quality or audio quality. But James or someone else may be able to answer your question better than I can.

Charlie

11th February 2007, 16:40

Now I'm lost again? So vista is needed?

Webslinger

11th February 2007, 16:45

Now I'm lost again? So vista is needed?

I believe the simple answer to your question is no.

Webslinger

11th February 2007, 16:48

I believe the simple answer to your question is no.

Powerdvd Ultra, for example, can run under Windows XP service pack 2.
http://www.cyberlink.com/multi/products/require_112_ENU.html

Windvd for HD content is not being offered on the the North American website yet
(and can only playback in a lower resolution at the moment, I think).

Vista is not required.

Charlie

11th February 2007, 17:01

Got it thanks, yes I'm a fan of Power DVD so that will be what I get.

whatever_gong82

11th February 2007, 17:05

I bought Vista the first day it hit the stores. No problems on it, works good. Slysoft products have no problems.

Does it install without you losing your files and stuff??

:confused:

I might buy Vista Home Premium Edition within the next month or so, but I'm concerned about the DRM mess and whether I'd lose any stuff that I've saved on Windows XP Pro.

James

11th February 2007, 17:21

No. Anydvd Hd will not improve sound or picture quality--and neither will Vista (for movies).

AnyDVD HD will improve your "movie watching" experience, as
1.) PowerDVD won't crash as often, as it has some trouble with AACS. :D
2.) PowerDVD doesn't play *a lot* of HD DVDs without AnyDVD HD *at all*. Yes, this is true. No joke.
3.) You can skip the unwanted intros
4.) You can remaster the HD DVD to your liking using scripting
5.) Maybe it even reduces the CPU load, as PowerDVD doesn't need to constantly check if the HDCP path is still intact.

James

11th February 2007, 17:22

I might buy Vista Home Premium Edition within the next month or so, but I'm concerned about the DRM mess and whether I'd lose any stuff that I've saved on Windows XP Pro.
If you are concerned about the DRM mess, why do you want to buy it? :confused:

James

11th February 2007, 17:25

Windvd for HD content is not being offered on the the North American website yet
(and can only playback in a lower resolution at the moment, I think).

WinDVD HD is complete crap (at least in its current "state").
PowerDVD Ultra does have its share of problems, but most of them are addressed by AnyDVD HD. :D

Webslinger

11th February 2007, 17:29

AnyDVD HD will improve your "movie watching" experience, as
1.) PowerDVD won't crash as often, as it has some trouble with AACS. :D
2.) PowerDVD doesn't play *a lot* of HD DVDs without AnyDVD HD *at all*. Yes, this is true. No joke.
3.) You can skip the unwanted intros
4.) You can remaster the HD DVD to your liking using scripting
5.) Maybe it even reduces the CPU load, as PowerDVD doesn't need to constantly check if the HDCP path is still intact.

Yeah, Anydvd HD is a no-brainer purchase. :clap: I would buy it.

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest Anydvd HD was useless. I just meant it's not going to magically make the source material any better (better sound quality/picture). I just didn't want people to be posting, "Help, AnyDVD HD isn't making my picture look any better than normal!"

James

11th February 2007, 17:32

Well, there's a new audio stack in Vista, but my impression is that, as always, you're limited by your source material and your hardware.

visit http://www.dasmirnov.net/blog/2006/09/04/windows_vista_improvements_audio_process

This to me is not actually improving the sound quality. It's software processing (like what soundblaster does with its sound control panel/css stuff).

I sincerely doubt you'd be losing out on picture quality or audio quality. But James or someone else may be able to answer your question better than I can.
You as a gamer should hate this new sound stack, as it does all environmental effects now in software (with the CPU). The DSP on your expensive soundcard will be twiddling thumbs.
For movie playback (multichannel decoding) it doesn't matter, this has to be done in software anyway.
The worst thing: The new sound stack doesn't work with ReClock (an essential piece of software for serious movie watchers).
As long as there is no ReClock for Vista, I wouldn't even consider it for DVD or HD DVD playback.

James

11th February 2007, 17:33

I agree with everything you wrote here. I am very upset Microsoft won't release directx 10 for XP. But I'm just one guy.

Yes, but if there are millions of other guys thinking as you...?

Webslinger

11th February 2007, 17:36

You as a gamer should hate this new sound stack, as it does all environmental effects now in software (with the CPU).

Yes. I'd be looking for any number of ways to disable it. But most well designed games should give you the option of using hardware instead of software audio decoding. If Microsoft forced gamers to take a big cpu hit each time they played games just for positional audio (when they already have soundblaster x-fi cards), there would be a huge uproar from gaming developers.

The worst thing: The new sound stack doesn't work with ReClock (an essential piece of software for serious movie watchers).
As long as there is no ReClock for Vista, I wouldn't even consider it for DVD or HD DVD playback.

Yes, there's little doubt in my mind that staying with XP would be best for HTPC users.

James

11th February 2007, 17:36

Webslinger

11th February 2007, 20:29

Yes, but if there are millions of other guys thinking as you...?

Then I'm sure the world would be a much better place to live in!
:D

(joking)

James

12th February 2007, 14:18

Another interesting article by security & cryptography specialist Bruce Schneier http://www.schneier.com/
"Why Vista's DRM Is Bad For You":
http://www.forbes.com/security/2007/02/10/microsoft-vista-drm-tech-security-cz_bs_0212vista.html

Have fun reading it. And don't buy Vista. :D

EDIT:
Here is Schneier's (and my) advice from his article:
In the meantime, the only advice I can offer you is to not upgrade to Vista. It will be hard. Microsoft's bundling deals with computer manufacturers mean that it will be increasingly hard not to get the new operating system with new computers. And Microsoft has some pretty deep pockets and can wait us all out if it wants to. Yes, some people will shift to Macintosh and some fewer number to Linux, but most of us are stuck on Windows. Still, if enough customers say no to Vista, the company might actually listen.

James

12th February 2007, 14:21

I bought Vista the first day it hit the stores. No problems on it, works good. Slysoft products have no problems.
No, but "Slysoft products have no problems" is not reason enough to install a DRM timebomb as operating system.

My motto: Say "no" to Vista.

Cloned dvd

12th February 2007, 14:22

and then I uninstalled it...

simply put... It is not for me.

too "tellatubbie-ish"

Clams

14th February 2007, 03:10

I agree 1000%!!!!

SAY NO TO VISTA!!! VISTA WAS NOT MADE FOR THE LITTLE USER.... IT WAS MADE FOR THE CORPORATIONS.

-W

jdlewallen

20th February 2007, 17:35

Dump all the microsoft crap and install Linux...software is free, updates are free, your system isn't the target of every virus ever created, AND you free up half your hard drive!!!

DetroitBaseball

20th February 2007, 18:36

Dump all the microsoft crap and install Linux...software is free, updates are free, your system isn't the target of every virus ever created, AND you free up half your hard drive!!!
I agree. I myself have used many distributions of Linux, but Slysoft products don't work on Linux.

Clams

24th February 2007, 11:52

Simple answer: No. On the contrary, to get rid of the 3:2 pulldown judder and have smooth 48/72 Hz playback (or to reverse PAL Speedup for the Australians and Europeans) you need ReClock.
ReClock won't run on Vista. This is a serious showstopper if you are serious about movie watching.

What about "Powerstrip" - another video reclocking utility?

-W

Klickety-Klack

26th February 2007, 05:51

Perhaps, Hi-end gamers should seriously consider a second computer, having the necessary resources with vista pre-loaded ...AND... one of those switches that allows you to switch monitor, mouse and keyboard between computers. Keep using present XP computer in which everything probably works fine for most users; i.e. if not broken don't fix.

M$$$ will never sell vista to me and many other people I know. It's just not worth coping with all the problems and DRM which will arise.

K

fivestones

27th February 2007, 02:50

I dont think ill upgrade to vista what i have is not broke so i dont think ill try to fix it.5 Stones

Clams

27th February 2007, 09:11

I don't see Vista as an "upgrade" at all. :D

-W

oldjoe

28th February 2007, 13:57

If you feel that you really "have" to have Vista.......... I would suggest purchasing a new HDD, pull (or disconnect) your HDD with XP, install Vista on the new HDD.
I see Vista as the next Windows Millennium.

James

28th February 2007, 19:24

Oh, dear...

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/022707-vista-bug-forces-legit-users.html

James

28th February 2007, 19:27

What about "Powerstrip" - another video reclocking utility?

-W

Powerstrip allows you to modify the refresh rate. Very useful tool in combination with ReClock (especially for ATI card users, Nvidia offers quite good adjustments within their control panel).
But it does no ReClock replacement.... :(

d.chatten

28th February 2007, 21:40

The thing is, a lot of people said the same things about Windows XP for the very same reasons, which by the way also contains DRM management, a hell of a lot of people also said they would never buy into Windows XP when it was first released, they also said they would never install XPSP1/2, and there was aslo complaints about DirectX issues.

Windows XP is probably the most secure and reliable OS M$ have ever produced, when Vista has been around as long as XP and a newer M$ OS has been released, these type of discussions will start all over again, but at that time people will probably be saying that Vista is the most secure and reliable OS M$ have ever produced.

I'm not pro M$ in any way, i just thought i would say a few things that may make people realise that this is nothing new when it comes to a new OS release.

oldjoe

1st March 2007, 10:38

You make a very valid point but Vista really has nothing new to offer like XP did. XP was actually a completely new and improved OS. Vista is basically eye candy and improvements for MS........... not the consumer.
XP was reviewed, by the "experts", as being an improvement and functional OS.....I have yet to see a positive review, of any kind, for Vista.

SlyFox 1

1st March 2007, 12:35

Posted by oldjoe:
Vista is basically eye candy and improvements for MS...........

Do you want to have all the eye candy of Vista and still use Windows XP? Well in this case" you can have your cake and eat it too." Do a " Google search " on "Vista Transformation Pack 6.0 Final " I am am by no means endorsing this program or will I take any responsiblity for it, but it is freeware and when installed in safe mode, ( create a restore point also) it will give you all the " eye candy of Vista and your XP OS will still be completely intact. This is my personal opinion not that of Slysoft or any other entitiy.:clap:

oldjoe

1st March 2007, 13:37

SlyFox 1

1st March 2007, 14:52

I tried "Vista Transformation Pack 6.0 Final" a few weeks ago to have a look at it. The program was a safe download and install. It also uninstalled without any problems. It is a good software to get a look at some of the eye candy of Vista.
I really like it, I get to keep XP Pro and get all the looks and extras of Vista, I am currently using the Areo theme with the Vista Log on screens and sounds, works great looks great and I don't have to worry about upgrading until all my programs are compatible. I like it also, only 30mbs program, didn't slow down my system one bit.:clap:

mmdavis

1st March 2007, 15:21

There have been articles posted here about Vista. Anyone read this one? http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html#quotes

farmerdave

4th March 2007, 00:05

Just found this article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6319845.stm
which basically reflects my personal opinion.
found that article very interesting. vista has two good features so far-the aero program with the ultimate version, when youhit start and tab you get all your open windows in 3d, you can flip thru them its cool, alt tab gives you a row to pick from, and there is a nice screensaver called aquarium, so make that 3--i have had to disable defender, and it is still a pain to allow and cotinue everything. also much difficulty with many programs, so you get a blocked programs start up box that you cant seem to get rid of. one other nice feature is that you can rest the mouse on the toolbar and see the actual page on your open programs. burning dvds seems to be much faster than ever before, i think. since eliminating the drag to disc box -forum had the thought for me, it seems to maybe work, will know next week when some new goodies come out. it sure is fast, only bummer is i was used to earlier versions that had the box to check for main movie and then language choi,e which made the burn quality excellente!!--probably because it does not have to compress so much. newer programs also do not tell you when to use a dual layer, they act a lot different. still getting used to them. they just jump to the whole dealie. sure is nice to have a forum to gab a bit on. seems to be some real nice techies out there that enjoy the fun of really using a computer to do things other than email. have found the new word 2007 to be a real plus to for laying out letters and reports etc, it has this new ribbon that does it all, and on top of it you can customize your own toolbar for the things you need all the time-- like quick print, new page, select all, spell check etc.. really cool. also can split pages, or size them with a zoomer, pretty cool. anyway still trying to like vista. i love xp, it was great. sorry to leave such a long note.......

ldasr

5th March 2007, 10:23

I for one am sick and tired of my rights being taken away. I use AnyDVD and 1ClickDVD with no problems on any copying, however, Windows Media Player won't play them. Of course that hasn't stopped me, there are many other players that work just fine. I have even switched my brouser from IE to FireFox. Vista to me is like another Government takeing away my rights.:mad:

d.chatten

7th March 2007, 07:18

I see a lot of people bashing Vista, but, how many of the Vista bashers have actually used Vista for a prolonged period of time, ie: for longer than a month or so, also how hard have they tried to get Vista working properly.

I have been using Vista for eight months now and i can say that Vista is as stable as XP, i did have issues when i first started using Vista but now i am using the release version of Vista i don't have any real issues.

Yes Vista has DRM, UAC, etc, but there are ways round this, XP also has DRM and a bunch of other copy protection measures so the DRM argument is slightly flawed.

Any user, experienced or not, should have no problems with Vista if they just give it a chance and not just give up on it when they experience there first couple of problems, that is being a defeatist.

As i have said before, i am not pro M$, i just think that a lot of people are giving Vista a hard time because they either haven't tried Vista at all, or, they haven't used Vista long enough, or, they just give up on Vista, there is also the bad press that Vista has received, but, instead of people trying Vista for them selves they choose to believe the press and bash Vista even though they haven't tried it and are not willing to give it a chance.

Ronnie_dk

6th April 2007, 04:43

I have read all the postings here in this thread, so Yes I'm aware of my 2 cents are not well seen here.

1: Stop complaining about Vista, and buy it if You want it.

2: Buy a Console for games. What is so important with games that cannot be archieved with a console. Or better STOP GAMING.. Get a life. Use the PC for PC stuff You know Personal Computer is for Personal Computing and not for Gaming.. Thats what a console is for

3: Skip M$ and switch to Linux

4: Tell Slysoft to develope Slysoft products to Linux Platform, and maybe open source.. This will make slysoft products better..

That will solve all of Your problems.

Yes I'm translating for Slysoft and Yes I'm doing this because I can contribute with something. But Slysoft Products are more than welcome on Linux Platform, and that's why i continue to Translate , maybe one day.....

oldjoe

6th April 2007, 10:09

Vista is certainly a "stable" OS but it has no real advantages over XP.
Why should a user be forced to but a separate component(i.e. Gaming Console) to play games after they have purchased, and over payed, for a PC?
Linux is also a very stable and secure OS but it is complicated for the average user who purchases their PC at the local big box store.

Webslinger

6th April 2007, 11:36

2: Buy a Console for games. What is so important with games that cannot be archieved with a console. Or better STOP GAMING.. Get a life. Use the PC for PC stuff You know Personal Computer is for Personal Computing and not for Gaming.. Thats what a console is for

:rolleyes: Console gaming will never be achieve the depth of PC gaming, not only because consoles don't use keyboard/mouse, but also because a high end pc machine will always have better specs than a console. When the PC Gamer staff fights against Official Xbox Magazine editors (previously smoking them 50 to 24 in Halo), the Xbox Magazine editors lose. Why? Because nothing is better than keyboard/mouse for shooters. In the upcoming Shadowrun, Microsoft is giving gamepad users an aim assist feature, and the Xbox Magazine editors still lost overall to the PC Gamer staff who used keyboard/mouse. Moreover, on what system can you play Neverwinter Nights 2, which allows you to create games and play others'? 'Nuff said. Console games are fun (and in some cases, exclusive titles aren't offered on the PC at all), but none offer the console player the depth to create, long complex games like NWN2 can.

And I'll never stop PC gaming. And with Slysoft's acquisition of Game Jackal, PC Gaming just makes more sense than ever. Moreover, Slysoft developers will now have to (I would imagine) start examining the advantages DirectX 10 provides with respect to PC Gaming--and particularly, Vista with respect to Game Jackal. The best solution, in my opinion, would be for someone to offer directx 10 (or something similar) on XP, but I doubt that's going to happen.

Ronnie_dk

6th April 2007, 12:25

Xbox Consoles are able to attach keyboard / Mouse see link: http://www.hopebuy.com/0001/0403/41501021.htm
So why Whine about missing Keyboards / Mice .. XBOX console is among 100 USD and kids ove them too.. Chip installed > and you have a mediacenter ( Without TV- Tuner. What the hell I don't need Tuner. ) and one GFX card is about 200 USD.. Choose Yourself....

DirectX 10 is for people wanting the newest stuff and newest games developed especially for new Hardware.. Have You noticed the conspiracy with M$ and game developers.. > Buy it and don't complain..

Just 2 more cents...

Webslinger

6th April 2007, 12:37

Xbox Consoles are able to attach keyboard / Mouse see link

Most console gamers aren't using them, so the console developers aren't really developing console games with keyboard/mouse
in mind (as such, the controls for those devices aren't always implemented well--even after remapping). And regardless, it's not nearly the same as being able to use a Logitech G15 keyboard paired with a Razer Deathadder mouse.

DirectX 10 is for people wanting the newest stuff and newest games developed especially for new Hardware.

Which PC gamers do want . . .

Have You noticed the conspiracy with M$ and game developers.. > Buy it and don't complain..

I agree with you completely here. I am pretty angry about it. I'm holding off switching to Vista on my gaming rig until a game comes out
that warrants me switching to directx 10.

5150

6th April 2007, 15:36

Do you want to have all the eye candy of Vista and still use Windows XP? Well in this case" you can have your cake and eat it too." Do a " Google search " on "Vista Transformation Pack 6.0 Final " I am am by no means endorsing this program or will I take any responsiblity for it, but it is freeware and when installed in safe mode, ( create a restore point also) it will give you all the " eye candy of Vista and your XP OS will still be completely intact. This is my personal opinion not that of Slysoft or any other entitiy.:clap:

Has anyone else tried this? It looks pretty good. I'm downloading right now but I'm apprehensive about installing it. Has it slowed anyone's computers down? Am I able to uninstall it? Any feedback is appreciated.

SlyFox 1

6th April 2007, 16:12

Has anyone else tried this? It looks pretty good. I'm downloading right now but I'm apprehensive about installing it. Has it slowed anyone's computers down? Am I able to uninstall it? Any feedback is appreciated.
It has not slowed down my computer in anyway. Install it in Safe Mode.:agree: And remember to create a restore point.:agree:

Gerff

9th April 2007, 20:18

I have a few issues with this Vista\DX10 thing. As of the last inquiry of DX 10, the only video card fully supporting it is the newest NVidia card, ATI does not have full support on their hardware for it yet, and NVidia's older cards do not either. The DRM thing we are going to have to live with until someone with enough $ gets the balls to fight hollywood and Microsuck. They have already gone beyond legal and civil rights with their DRM software among many things. Microsoft does not allow for any type of actual security or privacy on their software (Any of it, not just windows), and actualy builds ways into it so their spys (Govt also) can access anything on your computer very easily and puts it right in the EULA that they can do so, and the windows defender makes it even worse. Microsoft has taken more of your privacy rights away from you than the Federal Government has (and neither one should have gone as far as they have, but the people let them, consent by silence and non-action). As a 100% rule of thumb for the last 6 years, anything you install on your computer that is new from Microsoft takes away your privacy just a little bit more, and allows easier access into your "Personal" computer by anyone that wants in. This first started with the remote services and remote desktop features in XP, do you think anyone actualy uses this for what it was advertised for? And even better, do you think it is advertised as what it was designed for? If you uncheck the box to allow these to run, and check your services, why are they still running? Another tool Microsoft uses for spying is ActiveX, anything ActiveX is a privacy killer. It is MADE TO REMOTELY STORE INFORMATION ABOUT YOU ON A REMOTE SERVER wherever the software makers want, that is what ActiveX is, and that is literaly how it can be defined. How do you think you can log into any Yahoo service and your information be right there, including records of what you accessed from the other PC. Try it with Yahoo videos if you would like to test this. Its like a SuperCookie on an internet server you can't delete (Yahoo also will not delete your account info if you ask them to either, the government will not let them). ActiveX is legal spyware, explain that to me. Anyway, enough of the ranting for now. This is all true by the way, I can keep going for days because this does not even scratch the surface of how Microsoft has taken every bit of privacy away. You have three viable options (would be four if ANYONE could beat Microsoft in court), 1. Use a Linux based PC to access the Internet. 2. If possible, use Windows 98 or XP SP1 with NO UPDATES. 3. Lie about your personal information on ALL registrations (or don't register anything), and don't keep any personaly identifiable information on your PC, dont even enter it without saving (its still there), and keep NO incriminating evidence (don't do ANYTHING illegal) on your PC. These are the only 3 ways you are safe. Have a PC for games and such with no personal info on it, and a Linux PC (or Mcintosh) for your personal records and use. And as far as Movies or Music, the only way to watch/listen/other is XP SP1 w/o updates (or internet access for other) and Good Hardware and Software if you are looking for best quality (Or McIntosh is actualy the best at this).

One other point, I ALWAYS disable automatic updates, firewall, etc. before I even allow my computer to access the net after a reinstall, and NEVER turn it back on.

I am sorry, but if someone wants something on your computer, they will get it, so don't burden yourself thinking you can actualy stop them.

"Sometimes I wonder what Microsoft means by more secure, their customers personal security, the governments homeland security, or Hollywoods Copyrite security. My guess would be the latter 2."

oldjoe

10th April 2007, 08:58

One other point, I ALWAYS disable automatic updates, firewall, etc. before I even allow my computer to access the net after a reinstall, and NEVER turn it back on.

I am sorry, but if someone wants something on your computer, they will get it, so don't burden yourself thinking you can actualy stop them.

I whole heartedly agree with you about disabling MS Updates.
Windows Firewall on the other hand, is a very efficient tool.

LINUS

10th April 2007, 09:22

...to get rid of the 3:2 pulldown judder and have smooth 48/72 Hz playback (or to reverse PAL Speedup for the Australians and Europeans) you need ReClock.
ReClock won't run on Vista. This is a serious showstopper if you are serious about movie watching.

How about the numerous rumors that Vista has it's own way of dealing with the problems reclock is used for, i.e. letting the videostream dictate the timing and having the audio follow the videostream.

@James: Is there any truth to that? The EVR (extended video renderer) under Vista is supposed to take over the job of reclock. Care to comment? Thanks!

Lemming

13th April 2007, 07:53

It's not that the games won't work in XP. It's that they won't look as good, because XP doesn't support directX 10.
That depends on the developer of the game, some games may run on Vista or XP and take advantage of whats available to them. But others like Halo 2 will only run on Vista.

Webslinger

16th April 2007, 23:39

That depends on the developer of the game, some games may run on Vista or XP and take advantage of whats available to them. But others like Halo 2 will only run on Vista.

I'm talking specifically about the games that are being developed to take advantage of directx 10.

Clams

16th April 2007, 23:41

Saw this posted elsewhere by a guy I know whos a game dev in the graphics area. He still hates Vista - but wants to clear up a misconception.

__________________________________________________ _______

I'm no Vista fan-boy. I have no intention of installing it anytime soon.
I would like to shoot down the tired argument of DX10 being on Vista
only to sell systems, though.

DX10 is not possible on XP, 2000 or NT. When Microsoft made the decision
to put the Windows rendering pipeline inside of the kernel in NT4 for
performance reasons they set themselves down a path that they couldn't
easily get off. It's frickin' dangerous to have a video subsystem inside
of kernel space. If a video driver horks the whole system goes down. All
of those bluescreens you saw in NT 4, 2000, and (to a lesser degree)
weren't Windows problems. They were problematic video drivers that
barfed all over the kernel and destroyed the stability of the running
machine.

While all of that was going on Microsoft was doing what they normally
do. They started with a lackluster rendering technology, DirectX and
incrementally made it better and better. Since they weren't tied to an
industry consortium like the OpenGL ARB they didn't have to work by
committee. Instead they could listen to developers and push DirectX
quickly and efficiently. DXs 1, & 2 sucked. 3 sucked less. 4,5,6 were
better but forgetable. 7, 8, and 9 shined. The success of 9 was a double
edged sword though, because of the face that the entire rendering system
ended up going through kernel space. The things Microsoft wanted to do,
geometry shaders, unified shader pipelines, Managed DirectX performance
increases, 10 bit rendering, etc... were going to put a huge strain on
an already jerry-rigged graphic system in Windows. At the same time
Microsoft determined that GDI/GDI+ was a dead end for future Windows
window rendering. In Windows there is no concept of a window manager.
Each window manages itself. It's up to applications to detect when their
window has become dirty and redraw it. This system is slow, prone to
mistakes (like when you move a window and a nonresponsive app under it
doesn't update so it's like you're painting with the window you are
dragging), and doesn't allow for true window compositing. All of these
dead ends, kernel space, DX10 features that couldn't be put into kernel
space, and GDI/GDI+ make Microsoft realize that it was time to move the
graphics system back out of the kernel.

The rendering pipeline in Vista runs entirely outside of the kernel. An
errant video driver won't bring down the system. Since Microsoft started
over from scratch they corrected all of the problems of GDI/GDI+, made
it possible for DX10 to add all of the future rendering tech the game
devs were asking for, put in true window managing/compositing, and were
even able to rewrite DX 9.0c (called 9.0v in Vista) to work outside of
the kernel.

For rendering/graphics geeks like me Vista is Windows as it should be.
The massive changes in the rendering system aren't readily apparent,
though, as Microsoft did an admirable job of keeping the old system
running decently for as long as they did. In the end though, there was
no way that Microsoft was going to move the tech forward with the given
system.
-Quarters

Webslinger

16th April 2007, 23:47

Hey, thanks for posting that! I found it very interesting. Do you have a link to the source?

I'm still annoyed that I'm going to have to eventually change my gaming rig to Vista, but oh well . . .

I'm going to wait until a DirectX 10 game comes out that I'm really interested in before I switch.
Still need to wait for next gen Directx10 supported video cards as well. I think I will pass
on the 8800 series from Nvidia.

Clams

17th April 2007, 00:01

The source board is kinda an "inner sanctum" forum where the old Air Warrior alpha community hides and hangs out. It's located on a private NNTP news server (not HTML).

The writer was in charge of graphics for AW and has since worked for EA and others. I've known him well over 10 years and just assume he speaks "ex-cathedra" on such matters based on his history.

If you wanna quote him - Just quote "Quarters" - like I did. :)

-W

-W

Webslinger

17th April 2007, 00:28

O.k., thanks. Yeah, I definitely found that post very informative. Thanks again

James

17th April 2007, 07:36

Saw this posted elsewhere by a guy I know whos a game dev in the graphics area. He still hates Vista - but wants to clear up a misconception.
....

Interesting read. I didn't know that Vista has the renderer in user mode.
I still believe it would be possible to port the DX10 API to 2000/XP. (Maybe I'm wrong, this isn't my area of expertise)

TheGameKing

17th April 2007, 19:31

What a bunch of crap. So why even have a license? What happened to having a PC(Personal Computer)

I have Game Jackal 5.8 (pRO) and it works fine on Vista Build 6000.

I reason I bought GJ is that I have over 600+ games in my collection. I do not use the orginal CD/DVD to play the game. The cd's wear out or get so badly scatched that they are unuseable. And of course the game manufacter is not going to replace the game.

I would also be nice to pay for the license through PayPal since alot of people don't have credit cards. Let me know when on the latter and I'll update my GJ to slyfox.

Thanks

Bob Garlick
A.K.A. TheGameKing

DrinkLyeAndDie

21st April 2007, 16:16

You should be aware that there is no real technical reason for DX10 not running under XP or Windows 2000.
Microsoft doesn't *want* this, because they *want* you to buy Vista.
If you do, they have succeeded. If nobody does, the software publishers will beat Microsoft long and hard to release DX10 for XP.

Okay, I am living in a dream world... :o

Actually, you may find this (http://alkyproject.blogspot.com/2007/04/finally-making-use-of-this-blog-i.html) interesting, James and everyone else. :)

Here's an exerpt from the blog:

As a fitting start to this blog, I'm proud to release a preview of our DirectX 10 compatibility libraries. These libraries allow the use of DirectX 10 games on platforms other than Microsoft Vista, and increase hardware compatibility even on Vista, by compiling Geometry Shaders down to native machine code for execution where hardware isn't capable of running it. No longer will you have to upgrade your OS and video card(s) to play the latest games.

Very very interesting, indeed. :)

Webslinger

21st April 2007, 17:06

Actually, you may find this (http://alkyproject.blogspot.com/2007/04/finally-making-use-of-this-blog-i.html) interesting, James and everyone else. :)

Thank you for posting that link. I'll be keeping a close eye on that.

DrinkLyeAndDie

21st April 2007, 17:44

Thank you for posting that link. I'll be keeping a close eye on that.

I figured other people would find it as interesting as me. :)

And, I've never really bought the whole idea that they couldn't make a DX10 for XP anyway. Alright, it might not function exactly the same but I think the fact that it's been said to be essentially impossible by MS makes it smack of complete BS. At the very least compatibility is achievable if they wanted it to be. MS certainly has the manpower and money. They just want people to upgrade so here's a perfect way to push it.

I just always find it fun to watch a small group do something that someone like MS says just can't be done.

LittleMrJ

20th June 2007, 01:50

I didn't notice a link, or see anybody mention this throughout the thread, but ANYONE with questions or concerns about Vista NEEDS to read this...

This guy is a doctor of computer science, as well as a data security genious... This report has been referred to as "The longest suicide note in history", is constantly being updated, and has been creating a tsunami of crap for Microsoft to deal with... It's a bit technical, but oh so detailed (and a bit frightening)...

Read it if you haven't already, and if you have...Read it again!!!

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

DrinkLyeAndDie

25th June 2007, 17:28

An update on the Alky Project (http://alkyproject.blogspot.com/). I prevously posted a link and about their efforts to release compatibility libraries for DX10 on XP.

Sunday, May 13, 2007
After months of deliberation, we're proud to announce that we have "merged" with Project VAIO from over at fromvistatoxp.com. Technically speaking, they have joined our ranks and we'll all be operating under the Falling Leaf flag from now on. This is exciting news for us not only because it provides us with some new talent, but it also provides us with a new codebase to merge with our own and work to improve.

One thing this has immediately made possible is a much shorter timeframe on the release of our product for supporting Halo 2 and Shadowrun on Windows XP. You can place preorders of these games on our site through Amazon and receive, free of charge, our initial release of the Alky Compatibility Libraries when they launch. Currently, our estimate is late July, but it isn't solid.

Until next time,
- Brian Thomason
CEO of Falling Leaf Systems

Webslinger

9th August 2007, 16:42

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR . . . . . . . :mad::mad:

What the bleepity bleeeping bleep is Microsoft trying to do? Send me to crappy console gaming?

click this: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=41577 and read the article

I need to build my girlfriend a system. I was going to go with a 1 gig 850 mhz radeon HD 2900xt 2.0ghz (and if you think my choice is foolish, visit http://www.falcon-nw.com/keltstake/ati_2900xtx.asp . . . also the HD support is better and under Vista 64 Ultimate; I'm noticing slightly better drivers, which really isn't saying much), but it appears that Directx 10 is suddenly obsolete. This must be annoying 8800 gts/gtx/ultra and 2900 owners, who probably paid anywhere from $350-$700 in recent months.

*sigh*

What to do . . . what to do . . .

Pretty annoying to lay down a relatively large chunk of change only to have it made obsolete in about a month or two. ATI's directx 10.1 cards probably won't be released until sometime in 2008 (probably the multiple gpu cards). I don't know about Nvidia.

Microsoft is really making me angry. :mad:
I'm so annoyed at the moment.

I really wish PC Gamers had another choice (I honestly hate console gaming).

Charlie

9th August 2007, 17:14

Yes I have the NVIDIA 8500 or 8600 GT can't really remember and can't find the official DX10 either.

DrinkLyeAndDie

9th August 2007, 17:34

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR . . . . . . . :mad::mad:

What the bleepity bleeeping bleep is Microsoft trying to do? Send me to crappy console gaming?

click this: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=41577 and read the article

Definitely irritating and I would likely be cursing endlessly under my breath but as is noted in the article...

But these gamers shouldn't fret too much - 10.1 adds virtually nothing that they will care about and, more to the point, adds almost nothing that developers are likely to care about. The spec revision basically makes a number of things that are optional in DX10 compulsory under the new standard - such as 32-bit floating point filtering, as opposed to the 16-bit current. 4xAA is a compulsory standard to support in 10.1, whereas graphics vendors can pick and choose their anti-aliasing support currently.

While this situation is ridiculous it shouldn't be earth shattering. Now, I'm saying that having not spent an insane amount of money on a video card so I can't fully relate to those who had.

As it stands DX10 already put developers in an odd situation. The majority of people stil run XP and will for quite a few years, IMO. Vista adoption is happening and will continue to but developers have to remember that DX10 [supposedly] will never work under XP so they'll lose a lot of gamers if DX9 isn't supported in their games and if only a limited group of people have Vista and a DX10 supporting card... can they really justify the work? Now take that one step further. They know people dropped a load of money on DX10 video cards and now along comes DX10.1. Any developer who actually screws those people that bought those DX10 cards will, IMO, have to deal with one seriously ugly backlash.

Webslinger

9th August 2007, 17:49

Definitely irritating and I would likely be cursing endlessly under my breath but as is noted in the article...

Yeah, I'm not sure (or rather, I doubt) that article was written by a true pc gamer, because I did notice a couple of (paper) improvements that seem appealing--notably shader model 4.1 and "the ability to render to block-compressed textures".

visit http://www.elitebastards.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=103&Itemid=29&limit=1&limitstart=2

As it stands DX10 already put developers in an odd situation. The majority of people stil run XP and will for quite a few years, IMO. Vista adoption is happening and will continue to but developers have to remember that DX10 [supposedly] will never work under XP so they'll lose a lot of gamers if DX9 isn't supported in their games and if only a limited group of people have Vista and a DX10 supporting card... can they really justify the work?

from http://news.softpedia.com/news/Forget-about-DirectX-10-Introducing-DirectX-10-1-Preview-for-Windows-Vista-SP1-61398.shtml

"Microsoft estimates that in excess of 10 million gamers have upgraded to Windows Vista just to reek in the benefits of DirectX 10. The latest statistics from Redmond reveal that Vista sold over 60 million licenses from January 30. "

Presuming those are 10 million PC gamers that bought directx 10 cards, I should hope that also equals 10 million annoyed PC Gamers.

Webslinger

9th August 2007, 17:55

I mean, really, we've only see less than a handful of directx 10 games released (and, so far, they received less than stellar reviews irrc)--and already we're having 10.1 thrust upon us.

If you need to buy a new computer right now and your primary focus is PC gaming . . . well, this is a bad situation to be in atm. :(

Gaming developers certainly won't abandon directx 10 card owners, but I suspect most people didn't shell out big bucks thinking they'd have to make another big upgrade so quickly.

DetroitBaseball

9th August 2007, 17:56

Yeah, I'm not sure (or rather, I doubt) that article was written by a true pc gamer, because I did notice a couple of (paper) improvements that seem appealing--notably shader model 4.1 and "the ability to render to block-compressed textures".

visit http://www.elitebastards.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=103&Itemid=29&limit=1&limitstart=2

from http://news.softpedia.com/news/Forget-about-DirectX-10-Introducing-DirectX-10-1-Preview-for-Windows-Vista-SP1-61398.shtml

"Microsoft estimates that in excess of 10 million gamers have upgraded to Windows Vista just to reek in the benefits of DirectX 10. The latest statistics from Redmond reveal that Vista sold over 60 million licenses from January 30. "

Presuming those are 10 million PC gamers that bought directx 10 cards, I should hope that also equals 10 million annoyed PC Gamers.
DX10 can work on XP.

Webslinger

9th August 2007, 18:16

DX10 can work on XP.

Possibly, but I'm not sure how well it works under xp with respect to Vista--nor am I sure about 10.1.
Obviously, directx10 and 10.1 will likely be better supported under Vista.

DetroitBaseball

9th August 2007, 18:18

Possibly, but I'm not sure how well it works under xp with respect to Vista--nor am I sure about 10.1.
Obviously, directx10 and 10.1 will likely be better supported under Vista.
There is DX 10.1?

Webslinger

9th August 2007, 18:23

There is DX 10.1?

Announced, yes . . .

Read from post 80 onwards

DetroitBaseball

9th August 2007, 18:26

Announced, yes . . .

Read from post 80 onwards
I thought there weren't many DX10 video cards out yet and they are already making going to 10.1.

Webslinger

9th August 2007, 18:29

I thought there weren't many DX10 video cards out yet

Lots of Directx 10 supported video cards are out. 10.1 cards likely won't be released until very late this year or in 2008 (according to rumours I'm reading about ATI, but I'm not sure about Nvidia).

DetroitBaseball

9th August 2007, 18:51

Lots of Directx 10 supported video cards are out. 10.1 cards likely won't be released until 2008 (at least, not by ATI, but I'm not sure about Nvidia).
How can I check to see if my card inside my laptop that came with Vista fully supports DX10?

Webslinger

9th August 2007, 18:55

How can I check to see if my card inside my laptop that came with Vista fully supports DX10?

I would just go by the model number of the card. The GeForce 8 Series of GPUs (so 8600, 8800, etc.) are Directx 10 cards. So are ATI's radeon HD 2900 and 2600 series, I believe.

There's probably a list of directx 10 cards somewhere, but I'm afraid I'm a little busy at the moment to search. I'm agonizing over whether I should build a system now or wait.

DetroitBaseball

9th August 2007, 18:58

I would just go by the model number of the card. The GeForce 8 Series of GPUs (so 8600, 8800, etc.) are Directx 10 cards. So are ATI's radeon 2900 and 2x00 series, I believe.

There's probably a list of directx 10 cards somewhere, but I'm afraid I'm a little busy at the moment to search. I'm agonizing over whether I should build a system now or wait.
I doubt it then since it's the Intel GMA950. I'm not a gamer much so it's ok.

Webslinger

9th August 2007, 19:06

I doubt it then since it's the Intel GMA950. I'm not a gamer much so it's ok.

Yeah, that doesn't support directx 10.

DetroitBaseball

9th August 2007, 19:09

Yeah, that doesn't support directx 10.
I've never had a great graphics cards, but I got a steal on this laptop for $480 so it's all good.

SamuriHL

10th August 2007, 16:55

And....you expected more from MS?! Console gaming rocks, btw. Especially with kb/m support now being added to some games.

P.S. Find me anyone including devs that care about DX10...good luck.

Webslinger

10th August 2007, 18:56

And....you expected more from MS?! Console gaming rocks, btw. Especially with kb/m support now being added to some games.

Until I can add a Logitech G15 keyboard and a Razer Deathadder mouse and play NWN2 (or offering anything as deep as a game that lets me create other games), count me out (and until the games stop catering to people who don't want to read, but that's another conversation).

Dragon Age will also be PC only.

Find me anyone including devs that care about DX10...good luck.

Ever hear of a little something called Bioshock (the 360 version will be pretty close to the PC version, but the PC version will have some nicer Directx10 features)? How about Max Payne? Crysis (not that I'm going to buy it)?

I think they do care; otherwise, they wouldn't be developing games with directx 10 improvements:
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=77741

DrinkLyeAndDie

27th August 2007, 03:40

Here is another story I love to see: Gabe Newell: DirectX 10 for Vista was a mistake (http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/94869)

According to an online survey by Valve Software, only one in fifty players who access download service Steam has a DirectX 10-compatible graphics card and Windows Vista installed. In an interview with heise online, Gabe Newell, president of Valve Software, said that Microsoft made a terrible mistake releasing DirectX 10 for Vista only and excluding Windows XP. He said this decision affected the whole industry as so far only a very small percentage of players can use DirectX 10.

To read the whole story follow the link at the beginning of the post.

DetroitBaseball

27th August 2007, 03:43

Here is another story I love to see: Gabe Newell: DirectX 10 for Vista was a mistake (http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/94869)

To read the whole story follow the link at the beginning of the post.
They were so money hungry to try to get people to upgrade to Vista for DX 10.

SamuriHL

27th August 2007, 08:31

Here is another story I love to see: Gabe Newell: DirectX 10 for Vista was a mistake (http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/94869)

...

To read the whole story follow the link at the beginning of the post.

Yea, I saw that. I LMAO. DX10 is a joke. I'll stick to my consoles. (Man I can't wait for UT3 to be released!!!) At least Webslinger can relax now knowing that he WON'T need new hardware for DX10.1. :)

Webslinger

27th August 2007, 12:03

Yea, I saw that. I LMAO. DX10 is a joke. I'll stick to my consoles. (Man I can't wait for UT3 to be released!!!) At least Webslinger can relax now knowing that he WON'T need new hardware for DX10.1. :)

1. I will need new hardware to support directx 10.1 features. I won't need new hardware to run the games, but I didn't need new hardware to run any games anyway (it's not as though most games won't also run with directx 9 graphic cards). That's the point.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/20070815123340.html

"So, although DirectX 10.1 will support current DirectX 10 graphics hardware, today's DirectX 10 hardware will not be able to support all of the features of DirectX 10.1, which includes incremental improvements to 3D rendering quality."

Consequently, unless some patch is made, currect Directx 10 hardware is obsolete already (many will argue "your hardware was obsolete when you bought it", but other graphics cards, I would argue, lasted longer before they could no longer support new features).

2. UT3 will look better on PCs that support directx 10 than on consoles.

3. UT3 console players are going to be running away in fear from good PC players that have Razer Deathadder (or similar mice).

SamuriHL

27th August 2007, 12:16

1. I will need new hardware to support directx 10.1 features. I won't need new hardware to run the games, but I didn't need new hardware to run any games anyway (it's not as though most games won't also run with directx 9 graphic cards). That's the point.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/20070815123340.html

"So, although DirectX 10.1 will support current DirectX 10 graphics hardware, today's DirectX 10 hardware will not be able to support all of the features of DirectX 10.1, which includes incremental improvements to 3D rendering quality."

And that's exactly why I go with consoles over PC gaming these days. With a console, I know every 5 years I'm gonna have to upgrade. With a PC, it could be a year, it could be 3 months...you just never know. While you don't NEED to upgrade, you're feeling compelled to in order to get the very latest graphical goodness. :)

2. UT3 will look better on PCs that support directx 10 than on consoles.

Right, ok, and how many PCs have directx 10 graphics and Vista to take advantage of it? According to Valve...not a lot.

3. UT3 console players are going to be running away in fear from good PC players that have Razer Deathadder (or similar mice).

Ohhhh, now you just got on my bad side! :D You are QUITE ignorant on this one, my friend. LOL! Your Razer Deathadder mouse (or similar) can and will be used by me...on my PS3. You honestly think I'm playing UT on a freaking game pad?!?!? Um, no! KB/M for me, thanks. And it's cross platform with mod downloads, so, there's really no loss by playing it on a console vs pc. All the PC snobs are claiming they're going to own all PS3 players. That's certainly one scenario, but, with KB/M support, I have another scenario for you...it's called 1080p 50" LCoS. ;)

P.S. Anyone reading this and thinking that we're seriously going at each other, just remember that we're kidding each other in all fun. I know Webslinger likes DX10.x and PC gaming and I respect that. I like PC gaming, as well, I just don't have the funds to put together a good machine for it right now. So, I tease him about it. LOL! I doubt, however, that I'll EVER convince him to try some console gaming. That means he has to wait for Halo3 and Gears of War. He'll get em eventually, but, man how it sucks to have to wait. GRIN

Webslinger

27th August 2007, 12:24

Right, ok, and how many PCs have directx 10 graphics and Vista to take advantage of it? According to Valve...not a lot.

from http://news.softpedia.com/news/Forget-about-DirectX-10-Introducing-DirectX-10-1-Preview-for-Windows-Vista-SP1-61398.shtml

"Microsoft estimates that in excess of 10 million gamers have upgraded to Windows Vista just to reek in the benefits of DirectX 10. The latest statistics from Redmond reveal that Vista sold over 60 million licenses from January 30. "

Ohhhh, now you just got on my bad side! :D You are QUITE ignorant on this one, my friend. LOL! Your Razer Deathadder mouse (or similar) can and will be used by me...on my PS3.

I haven't seen anything come close to the Razer Deathadder for console players (and that mouse is supported via pc drivers). You may have mouse support--but you can't get anything with that amount of control:

visit http://www.esreality.com/?a=longpost&id=1300293&page=5

All laser mice fail horribly in that comparison.

As an aside, I was considering getting the new Razor Diamondback 3G, but they are ambidextrous (and likely won't feel as good, and I think the side mouse buttons are probably much better on the Deathadder, despite having two less buttons overall).

You honestly think I'm playing UT on a freaking game pad?!?!? Um, no!

I didn't say that. What I mean is good (and I'm being very picky here) hardware mice for the PC with pc drivers walk all over what you can get access to. Also, the deathadder mouse supports 1000mhz polling through the drivers.

And while it's possible, I still haven't seen anything come close to the Logitech G15 keyboard for console players. Recording up to 54 macros accessible by a single keystroke makes a lot of gaming much easier.

I have another scenario for you...it's called 1080p 50" LCoS. ;)

And what makes you believe PC gamers can't also play on 50" HD screens?

But you do have a nice TV, yes.

SamuriHL

27th August 2007, 12:33

from http://news.softpedia.com/news/Forget-about-DirectX-10-Introducing-DirectX-10-1-Preview-for-Windows-Vista-SP1-61398.shtml

404 - page not found We’re sorry, but there is no SoftPedia Web page matching your entry.
It is possible that you typed the address incorrectly, or that the page no longer exists.

You may wish to try another entry or to use the above search engine, which we hope will help provide you with the information you need.

Well that's not fun! LOL

"Microsoft estimates that in excess of 10 million gamers have upgraded to Windows Vista just to reek in the benefits of DirectX 10. The latest statistics from Redmond reveal that Vista sold over 60 million licenses from January 30. "

http://vista.blorge.com/2007/08/25/valve-software-offering-directx-10-exclusively-for-vista-was-a-mistake/

I haven't seen anything come close to the Razer Deathadder for console players (and that mouse is supported via pc drivers). You may have mouse support--but you can't get anything with that amount of control:

visit http://www.esreality.com/?a=longpost&id=1300293&page=5

All laser mice fail horribly in that comparison.

Ah, ok, I'll give you that one then. However, even if I was playing on a PC, I wouldn't have one available. Yea, they're nice, but, I won't be spending the money on one in either case.

And what makes you believe PC gamers can't also play on 50" HD screens?

What?! You PC gamers plug your PC's into a TV?!?! What about refresh rate and "CRT's offer better resolution"?!??! :D No TRUE PC gamer would waste their time with a run of the mill HDTV. LOL!!!

Webslinger

27th August 2007, 12:40

404 - page not found We’re sorry, but there is no SoftPedia Web page matching your entry.
It is possible that you typed the address incorrectly, or that the page no longer exists.

You may wish to try another entry or to use the above search engine, which we hope will help provide you with the information you need.

Well that's not fun! LOL

Sorry

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Forget-about-DirectX-10-Introducing-DirectX-10-1-Preview-for-Windows-Vista-SP1-61398.shtml

SamuriHL

27th August 2007, 12:41

And while it's possible, I still haven't seen anything come close to the Logitech G15 keyboard for console players. Recoding up to 54 macros accessible by a single keystroke makes a lot of gaming much easier.

MACROS?! Oy...yea, that CAN be done, but, I question whether it should be or not. It's like autoaim for gamepad users...yea, they do it, but, I don't think that's a good idea, either. Don't get me wrong here...I've been a PC gamer since the days of the Vic20, so, I've certainly been around the block a few times on hardware. :) However, I just can't keep up with how fast things move in the PC world anymore. Every 3 months they're coming out with newer and faster hardware. No, you don't need to buy a new machine every 3 months to keep up, but, anything over a year to 18 months old in the PC world is mostly considered out of date by gaming standards. I know that on a console that the hardware is good for 5 years. And while it may not be the latest and greatest, it provides a darn good experience IMO. There are DEFINITELY certain game genre's that I feel don't translate well to a console, but, it's POSSIBLE they could, eventually. The KB/M support for UT3 on the PS3 is a good first step. Now give me a RTS game that has that and we're getting closer. So I do understand your reluctance to try console gaming....I definitely get it. I just can't personally justify the PC hardware cost anymore...

Webslinger

27th August 2007, 12:45

Ah, ok, I'll give you that one then. However, even if I was playing on a PC, I wouldn't have one available. Yea, they're nice, but, I won't be spending the money on one in either case.

I got mine for slightly under $50 U.S. They aren't super expensive. They do tend to cost more in the UK or Europe (where I believe esreality is located).

What?! You PC gamers plug your PC's into a TV?!?!

Some do . . . Some have huge monitors as well . . .

8ms response time or less is usually fine.

What about refresh rate and "CRT's offer better resolution"?!??!

Refresh rate is important--but after 70 fps, it doesn't really matter (I don't want to get into an argument about this; I've seen 20 page threads on refresh rates and frames per second where PC gamers were arguing endlessly). Most people are fine at 45 fps.
No one I know uses a CRT. Most pc gamers are playing on 19"-26" LCDs now (and the big switch is to widescreen . . . but some older games don't support widescreen resolutions, so people fiddle with their drivers, etc.).

SamuriHL

27th August 2007, 12:47

Sorry

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Forget-about-DirectX-10-Introducing-DirectX-10-1-Preview-for-Windows-Vista-SP1-61398.shtml

That's interesting. So we'll need hardware support to take advantage of the new DX10.1 library and then games that are programmed to also take advantage of it. IOW, I can worry about that in a year or two at the earliest I think. I'm likely going to replace my laptop next year once a few new technologies are out and I may consider looking into a machine that can handle gaming. (Most important features of a new laptop to me are HD video, of course ;)) Hopefully NVidia gets their act together and provides better Vista drivers. They're getting there, yes, but, they still have a ways to go compared to their XP drivers. It's unfortunate that it's taking both ATI and NVidia so long to "get it right". We'll see what the market for laptops looks like next year when I'm ready to drop some cash on a new one. If DX10.1 hardware is available in a price I can afford, I'll consider it.

SamuriHL

27th August 2007, 12:52

I got mine for slightly under $50 U.S. They aren't super expensive. They do tend to cost more in the UK or Europe (where I believe esreality is located).

That's not TOO bad I suppose. But, it's corded, and, well, I don't do cords even for gaming mice. I know, I know. Don't even start with me on that one! :) Yes, I'm probably going to get my @$$ handed to me, but, it'll still be fun as all hell. I LOVE the UT games and can't wait. And currently, for me, the PS3 is the most powerful machine in my house.

Some do . . . Some have huge monitors as well . . .

Refresh rate is important--but after 70 fps, it doesn't really matter (I don't want to get into an argument about this; I've seen 20 page threads on refresh rates and frames per second where PC gamers were arguing endlessly). Most people are fine at 45 fps.
No one I know uses a CRT. Most gamers are playing on 19"-26" LCDs now.

I thought this was still a big complaint in the gaming world and that most hardcore gamers were STILL using CRTs due to what they consider "problems" with LCD technology? *I* personally love LCDs and have never had a problem gaming on mine. (I got a decent Sony with an excellent refresh rate so ghosting isn't an issue for me). I find it interesting that the gaming community at large is finally accepting LCDs. That's a good thing IMO. Of course, they now want to change the connection type from DVI to whatever that new standard is that's starting to come out. I forget what it's called but they claim it's even better than HDMI. And at the res that some of these high end PC gamers are pushing these days, they're going to need the bandwidth!!! Anything over 1920 is insane IMO. But, if they can do it, and they are, all the more power to them!!

DrinkLyeAndDie

27th August 2007, 12:54

from http://news.softpedia.com/news/Forge...P1-61398.shtml

"Microsoft estimates that in excess of 10 million gamers have upgraded to Windows Vista just to reek in the benefits of DirectX 10. The latest statistics from Redmond reveal that Vista sold over 60 million licenses from January 30. "

I'm pretty sure you pointed this out once before when we talked about DirectX 10.1 but the more I've thought about things... of course Microsoft would say that and notice that really important word: estimates. They probably stretched it a bit and the real number is lower.

It's been ages since I read something that Gabe Newell discussed but I remember lots of talk about video cards and new technology back when the first Nvidia Geforce 3 was released. In the end I have to take the figures taken from Valve more to heart than anything Microsoft is going to say. Hell, Microsoft wants people to upgrade to Vista. Of course they are going to exaggerate! Valve, on the other hand, has no real reason to skew the figures, IMHO.

Webslinger

27th August 2007, 12:55

MACROS?! Oy...yea, that CAN be done, but, I question whether it should be or not. It's like autoaim for gamepad users...yea, they do it, but, I don't think that's a good idea, either.

Yeah, some basically cheat using macros. It's an ethical dilemma. :)

I just can't personally justify the PC hardware cost anymore...

Consoles are definitely more cost effective. And some consoles have excellent games that aren't ported to the PCs (or PC players have to wait a few years for an emulator--and then the roms or files to play on the emulators). I've also seen horrible translations/console to PC ports. Console gaming is fun (and probably undoubtedly more cost effective), but I would still argue the best gaming experience (PC games can be more complex; I doubt I will ever see NeverWinter Nights 2, for example, on a console--or something that allows players to create really complex games) is to be found on a PC (if you can afford it).

SamuriHL

27th August 2007, 12:59

The problem is that 60 million licenses != 60 million Vista DX10.x gamers. How many of those licenses are sold to OEMs and are not yet sold to people actually USING them? How many of those licenses are in machines that are used for gaming? With DX10.x hardware? That's all unknown. I won't even try to estimate. Could be high, could be low. We just simply don't know. Valve says it's on the lower side. Given how steam works I'm likely to trust their estimates fairly well. There is one definite...things WILL improve for Vista gaming over time. Eventually it'll hit critical mass and that's a good thing. I'm just not convinced it'll be this year.

Webslinger

27th August 2007, 13:03

That's not TOO bad I suppose. But, it's corded, and, well, I don't do cords even for gaming mice. I know, I know.

A lot of people do prefer wireless. I'm extremely picky, and a lot of wireless mice go into a very brief standby mode (that's not so brief to me--but I'm picky) to save on battery power. The response time to wake up the mouse is noticeable to me (I'm talking about wireless Logitech gaming mice here, actually), but it won't bother most people. Also, I hate replacing batteries--and I hate recharging things.

Yes, I'm probably going to get my @$$ handed to me,

Nah. A lot of kids will be playing UT3--and most don't know what mice to use etc. But the best PC player using good hardware should almost always smoke the best console player (once excellent mice/keyboards start being developed for console players that may change).

I thought this was still a big complaint in the gaming world and that most hardcore gamers were STILL using CRTs due to what they consider "problems" with LCD technology?

No. That was an issue at one time, due to response times, but that's no longer an issue (no ghosting). Again, I know of no serious PC gamer using a crt. Greg Vederman, the editor of PC Gamer magazine in the U.S. bought a nice widescreen LCD monitor several months ago and blogged about it on the PC
Gamer website.

Anything over 1920 is insane IMO. But, if they can do it, and they are, all the more power to them!!

Even my 17" widescreen notebook uses a native resolution of 1920x1200. Gaming on it is fine.

SamuriHL

27th August 2007, 13:05

Yeah, some basically cheat using macros. It's an ethical dilemma. :)

Cheating has ALWAYS been a problem in gaming especially on the PC since the beginning. Just something we have to deal with. The bots used to really p!$$ me off, though. I hated that nonsense. (I'm referring to the autoaiming/kill bots that some idiots used). They're getting better at detecting that kind of stuff, but, there will always be the idiots trying to get around it and use those things. Consoles do make that harder, but, not impossible.

Consoles are definitely more cost effective. And some consoles have excellent games that aren't ported to the PCs (or PC players have to wait a few years for an emulator--and then the roms or files to play on the emulators). I've also seen horrible translations/console to PC ports. Console gaming is fun (and probably undoubtedly more cost effective), but I would still argue the best gaming experience (PC games can be more complex; I doubt I will ever see NeverWinter Nights 2, for example, on a console--or something that allows players to create really complex games) is to be found on a PC (if you can afford it).

I won't argue that if you have a *GREAT* high end PC, that gaming is obviously going to be the best platform. Consoles put everyone on a level playing field which is somewhat good. And as I said, there are some PC games that can't be done well on a console...yet, but, I think we're getting close to seeing that happen. I mean, consoles have GIGS of hard drive storage and now have KB/M support. There's not much they couldn't do now on a console if they chose to. (Even NWN2 COULD be done...will it? Who knows). I do miss some aspects of PC gaming, though. But, consoles do a decent job and I've mostly accepted that's where gaming lies for me these days. After 20 years of PC gaming, I'm ok with it. :)

SamuriHL

27th August 2007, 13:12

A lot of people do prefer wireless. I'm extremely picky, and a lot of wireless mice go into a very brief standby mode (that's not so brief to me--but I'm picky) to save on battery power. The response time to wake up the mouse is noticeable to me (I'm talking about wireless logitech gaming mice here, actually). Also, I hate replacing batteries--and I hate recharging things.

I don't mind the recharging considering I get the benefits of wireless. Even in Doom3 and HL2 on my laptop(ok, ok, I admit it...I still do the occasional PC gaming when I have hardware that can run it! :)) I had zero problems with lag on wireless. I was honestly surprised, but, then I use logitech gear exclusively so it's not that shocking that it works. I've not noticed the wake up time in games that you're referring to. I know the issue, just have never personally experienced it.

Nah. A lot of kids will be playing UT3--and most don't know what mice to use etc. But the best PC player using good hardware should almost always smoke the best console player.

THAT is going to be an issue. There are going to be a ton of kids on PS3's that have never played a UT game before in their life. Good thing we can separate the gamepad users from the KB/M users using filtering of game types. I'll stick to the KB/M games when I play online I think. I A> don't wanna hear whining that KB/M users are cheating and B> don't wanna deal with the autoaim crap of gamepad users. I'm not afraid to take on PC users mouse to mouse. If I lose, I lose, but, I'm not afraid of the competition. :)

No. That was an issue at one time, due to response times, but that's no longer an issue (no ghosting). Again, I know of no serious PC gamer using a crt. Greg Vederman, the editor of PC Gamer magazine in the U.S. bought a nice widescreen LCD monitor several months ago and blogged about it on the PC
Gamer website.

GOOD! I'm glad they finally got over that. My Sony is 8ms and I've never had problems with it. A good samsung or sony LCD should work great as a gaming screen. Plus it saves energy and gives you more desk space for the kick @$$ klipse or altec lansing speaker systems every gamer should have. ;)

Even my 17" widescreen notebook uses a native resolution of 1920x1200. Gaming on it is fine.

Mine, too. I play at 1280 on my laptop though as it's slightly underpowered for gaming. My next one won't be.

Webslinger

27th August 2007, 13:16

Valve, on the other hand, has no real reason to skew the figures, IMHO.

I would also be more inclined to believe Valve than Microsoft. However, not everyone who plays HL2 represents the entire directx 10 PC Gaming community.
I did not buy HL2. I did buy HL1 and hated it (sacrilegious, I know). Both of these games do not currently offer directx 10 features.

Also, considering Valve hasn't released anything that supports Directx 10 yet (Half Life Episode 2 comes out Oct. 10--and other than Lost Planet what games are offered by Steam that support DirectX 10 at the moment), why would people with DirectX 10 hardware be running to Steam right now anyway? After the Orange Box is released, then maybe . . .

I am not a hardcore first person shooter player. But I am a fairly big PC gamer. I have never used (and God willing, never will) Steam.

SamuriHL

27th August 2007, 13:30

I actually like Steam. It's not bad. However, I will NEVER buy Bioshock on Steam as they allowed some serious stupidity on that one. Doesn't Bioshock support DX10? And even though it's not a Valve game, they are distributing it on Steam. In any case, originally I thought Steam was a stupid idea, but, after buying HL2 on it, I have to say I really like it. Download anywhere, play once is a decent concept.

Webslinger

27th August 2007, 13:34

I actually like Steam. It's not bad. However, I will NEVER buy Bioshock on Steam as they allowed some serious stupidity on that one. Doesn't Bioshock support DX10?

Yes. The game came out on August 21st. So unless Steam was conducting polls after August 21st, then . . .

My copy of Bioshock just arrived today actually. But I probably won't be playing it until sometime next week. I pre-ordered. Had I know about the nonsense that was pulled, I would have probably never ordered.

2Kgames really dropped the ball with the copy protection and activation nonsense. Visit http://pcgamer.com/

Despite all that, Bioshock is receiving the best reviews of any game so far this year:
http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/bioshock

DrinkLyeAndDie

27th August 2007, 13:39

I would also be more inclined to believe Valve than Microsoft. However, not everyone who plays HL2 represents the entire directx 10 PC Gaming community.

Of course not. But it is a small slice of it. Think of it as a snapshot of a very big city. In this case you are simply taking a picture of one cafe.

Also, considering Valve hasn't released anything that supports Directx 10 yet (Half Life Episode 2 comes out Oct. 10--and other than Lost Planet what games are offered by Steam that support DirectX 10 at the moment), why would people with DirectX 10 hardware be running to Steam right now anyway? After the Orange Box is released, then maybe . . .

Yes, but what about people who already have a DirectX 10 card and also play other games? Steam is able to see what percentage of people are using DirectX 10 cards regardless of the game they are playing, AFAIK. So, while not every gamer uses Steam they are getting a group to sample from.

I am not a hardcore first person shooter player. But I am a fairly big PC gamer. I have never used (and God willing, never will) Steam.

I like all kinds of games but the original UT will probably remain my favorite for years to come. I was born to play that game. Other games I'm just not as good at. I'm definitely into other kinds of games, as well, but I always need at least one good FPS in installed other than UT to blow off some steam when I'm stressed. And, come on, tell me when you are playing UT and in a bad mood that hearing, "Headshot!" doesn't make ya smile and grin like a kid at Christmas [or whatever Holiday people celebrate at that time of year depending on their religion, etc]. ;)

I've never wanted to hassle with Steam from all I've read and seen. However, now with the release of BioShock and F'ing insanity of the limitations of installation I'd contemplate purchasing it through Steam if I get more freedom.

SamuriHL

27th August 2007, 13:40

Trust me, I'm well aware of all the controversy surrounding Bioshock. While it's true it's *NOT* a rootkit, it's still p!$$ing people off. I mean, DRM'ing your demo?! Come on now. And this whole activation nonsense is beyond ridiculous. They upped it to 5 times now. WOW! That solves everything!! MORONS. How many people are going to uninstall the damn thing before they reinstall the OS? Yea, I hate to say it, but, I'm thinking this is another area where the Xbox 360 version wins. ;) I put the thing in, and I play. Period.

Webslinger

27th August 2007, 13:42

http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/94869

"Gabe Newell, president of Valve Software, said that Microsoft made a terrible mistake releasing DirectX 10 for Vista only and excluding Windows XP"

For what it's worth, I agree entirely with that statement--but only because I dislike Vista; and Directx 10 is the only reason I've installed Vista 64 bit Ultimate on my g/f's system.

SamuriHL

27th August 2007, 13:44

And, come on, tell me when you are playing UT and in a bad mood that hearing, "Headshot!" doesn't make ya smile and grin like a kid at Christmas [or whatever Holiday people celebrate at that time of year depending on their religion, etc]. ;)

Yes indeed. UT was always one of my favorite FPS games. My friends and I played the hell out of the original when it came out. I'm very much looking forward to UT3.

I've never wanted to hassle with Steam from all I've read and seen. However, now with the release of BioShock and F'ing insanity of the limitations of installation I'd contemplate purchasing it through Steam if I get more freedom.

Nein. You will not get more freedom on Steam. The IDIOTS allowed them to use their own authentication mechanism separate from Steam. So, no, you get all the same CRAP as on the disc version. MORONS.

SamuriHL

27th August 2007, 13:44

Webslinger

27th August 2007, 13:48

Of course not. But it is a small slice of it. Think of it as a snapshot of a very big city. In this case you are simply taking a picture of one cafe.

Okay, so if your biggest games/sellers don't offer Directx 10 features, then why would PC Gamers with Directx 10 hardware be using Steam? It would be one thing if the majority of games being bought or sold on Steam supported Directx 10, but in all likelyhood the biggest sellers don't. The Lost Planet was not well received. Bioshock may change everything, but I would be willing to bet the biggest selling games on Steam do not currently support DirectX 10 (not to mention, some gamers, including myself, would rather have the physical media and the box with the manual).

That's a bit like offering a menu that mostly offers steak and claiming, "Well, we polled everyone that came to our restaurant. Most people ordered steak." Gee. Really?

However, now with the release of BioShock and F'ing insanity of the limitations of installation I'd contemplate purchasing it through Steam if I get more freedom.

Had I known about all of this nonsense, I would have probably avoided purchasing the game.

Webslinger

27th August 2007, 13:58

And, come on, tell me when you are playing UT and in a bad mood that hearing, "Headshot!" doesn't make ya smile and grin like a kid at Christmas [or whatever Holiday people celebrate at that time of year depending on their religion, etc]. ;)

A long time ago, I use to be a very big Tribes player (not all the crummy sequels, but the original Tribes). Then the cheating began . . .

I did enjoy F.E.A.R. and F.E.A.R. Extraction point (I like horror games with a half-decent story). But I didn't buy those games for the multiplayer.

I also own Star Wars Battlefront I and II (but they've been uninstalled).

I'm actually an old time adventure game player that has seen the genre fall apart (except in Europe). So my favourite games tend to be story driven adventure games and story-driven RPGs (especially the old ones from Black Isle, Bioware, and now Obsidian Entertainment). I really enjoy a good story.

SamuriHL

27th August 2007, 14:04

A long time ago, I use to be a very big Tribes player (not all the crummy sequels, but the original Tribes). Then the cheating began . . .

I did enjoy F.E.A.R. and F.E.A.R. Extraction point (I like horror games with a half-decent story). But I didn't buy those games for the multiplayer.

I also own Star Wars Battlefront I and II (but they've been uninstalled).

I'm actually an old time adventure game player that has seen the genre fall apart (except in Europe). So my favourite games tend to be story driven adventure games and story-driven RPGs (especially the old ones from Black Isle, Bioware, and now Obsidian Entertainment). I really enjoy a good story.

Cough cough Final Fantasy.... :D

DrinkLyeAndDie

27th August 2007, 14:50

Yes indeed. UT was always one of my favorite FPS games. My friends and I played the hell out of the original when it came out. I'm very much looking forward to UT3.

I'm not sure if I'll ever get UT3. Epic/Digital Extremes really really pissed me off. I got UT and then UT2003 and then the morons released UT2004. IMO what they did was spit in the face of all the people who bought UT2003 when it shipped. Back when it happened they should have allowed people to exchange UT2003 for UT2004 or offered a super-reduced upgrade price. Did they? Nope. They took my money and laughed. As much of a fan as I was I still remember that and I'm still angry about it.

I did, recently, due to the sweet price of it get the Unreal Anthology. I got it because the price was so nice and I got Unreal [with the Return to Na Pali Expansion Pack], Unreal Tournament (1999) GOTY, Unreal II - The Awakening and Unreal Tournament 2004 [Editors Choice Edition & Mega Bonus Pack] on a single DVD along with a music CD of Unreal music. I paid 12 USD. Pretty sweet deal in my book.

Nein. You will not get more freedom on Steam. The IDIOTS allowed them to use their own authentication mechanism separate from Steam. So, no, you get all the same CRAP as on the disc version. MORONS.

WTF. Ugh. Ah well, looks like I simply will never own that game. Looked nice, too.

Okay, so if your biggest games/sellers don't offer Directx 10 features, then why would PC Gamers with Directx 10 hardware be using Steam? It would be one thing if the majority of games being bought or sold on Steam supported Directx 10, but in all likelyhood the biggest sellers don't. The Lost Planet was not well received. Bioshock may change everything, but I would be willing to bet the biggest selling games on Steam do not currently support DirectX 10 (not to mention, some gamers, including myself, would rather have the physical media and the box with the manual).

That's a bit like offering a menu that mostly offers steak and claiming, "Well, we polled everyone that came to our restaurant. Most people ordered steak." Gee. Really?

I understand your point but my point is that just because I might own a DirectX 10 card doesn't mean I will no longer play games that don't use DirectX 10. And if in the past I had already purchased a DirectX 9 game through Steam then I'll still be playing it. Nonetheless, Steam is still seeing what kind of card the people have and with that information they can get an idea of how many people do actually have DirectX 10 cards that are playing games [not just DirectX 10 games].

SamuriHL

27th August 2007, 15:12

I'm not sure if I'll ever get UT3. Epic/Digital Extremes really really pissed me off. I got UT and then UT2003 and then the morons released UT2004. IMO what they did was spit in the face of all the people who bought UT2003 when it shipped. Back when it happened they should have allowed people to exchange UT2003 for UT2004 or offered a super-reduced upgrade price. Did they? Nope. They took my money and laughed. As much of a fan as I was I still remember that and I'm still angry about it.

Never bought UT2k4 cause I was in the same boat. And I was also pretty p!$$ed about it. So I just ignored it. UT2k3 is the last one I bought. Hence, I'm pretty stoked for this new one. I just hope the console experience is everything they claim it will be. IMO, it should be damn near PC like on the PS3 with a KB/M.

WTF. Ugh. Ah well, looks like I simply will never own that game. Looked nice, too.

Yea, I thought that'd not make you too happy. I still need to grab the demo on the 360 and check it out. I have too many games this fall I want. Tomorrow is Tiger Woods 2k8 day for me. That'll be so much fun. The next game MIGHT be Heavenly Sword for PS3. If not, it'll be UT3 in November. With my TV and PS3 purchases this year, I can't get too many more things past the home finance committee. ;)

DrinkLyeAndDie

27th August 2007, 15:32

Never bought UT2k4 cause I was in the same boat. And I was also pretty p!$$ed about it. So I just ignored it. UT2k3 is the last one I bought. Hence, I'm pretty stoked for this new one. I just hope the console experience is everything they claim it will be. IMO, it should be damn near PC like on the PS3 with a KB/M.

Well, I recently updated my system so I am re-exploring the old games to see how much nicer they look. When I got into downloading updates for UT2003 it brought back my memories and anger over UT2004. And then I saw the great deal on the anthology set so I dropped so I bought it. I would never have purchased UT2004 by itself even this many years later. I'll have to check out the info on UT3.

The Unreal engine is nice but I'm also interested to see the recent updates to the Serious engine. As silly as they are I love the Serious Sam series of games.

All I can say is damn... I hated UT2003 when it first came out because my system at the time just wasn't up for it: Intel PIII 750 MHz, 768 MB RAM & an Nvidia Geforce 3. Years later on full settings it runs smooth as silk. :D I still prefer UT (1999), however.

Any game like Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Call of Duty, Medal of Honor, etc interests me. Gears of War is one game I really really really want to check out. I may buy an XBox 360 at some point to play that. LOL.

Yea, I thought that'd not make you too happy. I still need to grab the demo on the 360 and check it out. I have too many games this fall I want. Tomorrow is Tiger Woods 2k8 day for me. That'll be so much fun. The next game MIGHT be Heavenly Sword for PS3. If not, it'll be UT3 in November. With my TV and PS3 purchases this year, I can't get too many more things past the home finance committee. ;)

Well, I did download the demo the first night. All 1+ gigs of it. I slept while it download but I have yet to install it. I'll now promptly delete it. Grrr. Idiots.

As for Tiger Woods... ever since I played that on the PS2 I love the game. I rarely play and it's usually a group of friends playing after a night out but it's an awesome game.

I'm saving my money for a new computer and an XBox 360 plus HD-DVD drive. I doubt I'll ever buy a PS3 but we'll see. Maybe if I found one at a super low price I could justify it but at present I will remain happy using a friend's PS2 that they never use so they essentially loaned it to me permanently. :D

SamuriHL

27th August 2007, 15:44

Well, I recently updated my system so I am re-exploring the old games to see how much nicer they look. When I got into downloading updates for UT2003 it brought back my memories and anger over UT2004. And then I saw the great deal on the anthology set so I dropped so I bought it. I would never have purchased UT2004 by itself even this many years later. I'll have to check out the info on UT3.

The Unreal engine is nice but I'm also interested to see the recent updates to the Serious engine. As silly as they are I love the Serious Sam series of games.

All I can say is damn... I hated UT2003 when it first came out because my system at the time just wasn't up for it: Intel PIII 750 MHz, 768 MB RAM & an Nvidia Geforce 3. Years later on full settings it runs smooth as silk. :D I still prefer UT (1999), however.

Any game like Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Call of Duty, Medal of Honor, etc interests me. Gears of War is one game I really really really want to check out. I may buy an XBox 360 at some point to play that. LOL.

Serious Sam brings back great memories. Coop in that ROCKED! UT2k3 does well on my laptop. I'm very excited for the new one. Gears of War...

http://www.microsoft.com/games/pc/gearsofwar.aspx

:)

Well, I did download the demo the first night. All 1+ gigs of it. I slept while it download but I have yet to install it. I'll now promptly delete it. Grrr. Idiots.

As for Tiger Woods... ever since I played that on the PS2 I love the game. I rarely play and it's usually a group of friends playing after a night out but it's an awesome game.

I'm saving my money for a new computer and an XBox 360 plus HD-DVD drive. I doubt I'll ever buy a PS3 but we'll see. Maybe if I found one at a super low price I could justify it but at present I will remain happy using a friend's PS2 that they never use so they essentially loaned it to me permanently. :D

That sucks about the demo. I just don't understand that. Yea, I know the "official" reason why they did it, but, it's idiotic. Tiger Woods...great games. I was never into golf but a friend of mine brought it over for the PS2 one day and I got hooked. The first time I did the "drop a stroke" cheat she about flipped out and had a heart attack. It was funny. :D The 360 is a hell of a machine. I've had more fun on that thing than any other console I've ever owned. That's saying a lot cause I was a *HUGE* PS fan. I didn't buy a PS3 due to Sony's arrogance and stupidity. However, I wanted blu-ray so I just ended up buying one last month...yet I've still not bought a game for it. Not until Heavenly Sword and/or UT3. It plays all my PS2 games, though, so, that works out well.

kizzarmy1

8th September 2007, 12:26

I used vista for 2 weeks, took it out and went back to XP. Vista is a HOGG! Man my Dual Core screems with xp!!

Charlie

8th September 2007, 12:35

I personally have been on Vista since Febuary and I have never looked back so I am Vistafied as zebadee would say. :D

kizzarmy1

8th September 2007, 12:41

Vista has a beautiful interface! and the widgets are very cool (i got some for xp). I just didn't like how i had to get permission from the computer everytime I wanted to change something

DetroitBaseball

8th September 2007, 12:45

Vista has a beautiful interface! and the widgets are very cool (i got some for xp). I just didn't like how i had to get permission from the computer everytime I wanted to change something
You can turn that off if you want.

Webslinger

8th September 2007, 12:46

I personally have been on Vista since Febuary and I have never looked back so I am Vistafied as zebadee would say. :D

Traitor! ;)

Just kidding. I have Vista 64 bit Ultimate edition in my household as well (although, it's on my girlfriend's system).

"Hey!!!?? Why do I need Vista 64 bit Ultimate edition? And why do you have me dual booting XP?"

"Well, you see, sweety, there are these directx 10 games that are coming out that I want to play--and I don't want Vista on my system, so . . ." :D

Charlie

8th September 2007, 12:56

Traitor! ;)

Just kidding. I have Vista 64 bit Ultimate edition in my household as well (although, it's on my girlfriend's system).

"Hey!!!?? Why do I need Vista 64 bit Ultimate edition? And why do you have me dual booting XP?"

"Well, you see, sweety, there are these directx 10 games that are coming out that I want to play--and I don't want Vista on my system, so . . ." :D

I love the sarcasm there. I can always go back to XP but not sure. I have thought about getting another HDD and installing XP there and then just tweak the registry gotta love vista on this so I can dual boot.

Webslinger

8th September 2007, 13:04

I love the sarcasm there. I can always go back to XP but not sure. I have thought about getting another HDD and installing XP there and then just tweak the registry gotta love vista on this so I can dual boot.

Actually, that's exactly what I did on my g/f's system. I have Vista 64 bit ultimate running on a raid 0 configuration (2x 500 gb hard drives). On the third hard drive, her old Windows XP pro is installed. When she wants to boot into xp, she just changes the hard drive boot order shortly after her computer posts.

SamuriHL

8th September 2007, 16:51

DrinkLyeAndDie

8th September 2007, 17:49

I think we all know where I stand on Vista. :D However, in the last 2 months I've threatened more than once to go back to XP because I just think Vista drivers *SUCK*. Nonetheless, the patches they put out last month helped and I'm hearing that SP1 does MAJOR work on the video sub-system so there's hope. I should be able to grab the beta of SP1 in a few weeks. I may back up my machine and check it out.

Just out of curiosity what is the speed of your processor. I've contemplated checking out Vista but I'm just not sure how well it'll run. Theoretically it should work fine but I'm sure the overhead in resources is more than XP Pro. One of the things I've been waiting for was the SP1 to be released. I really don't plan on not using XP for a long time to come but I do expect some software updates to be specifically tailored for Vista over XP.

SamuriHL

8th September 2007, 18:35

Just out of curiosity what is the speed of your processor. I've contemplated checking out Vista but I'm just not sure how well it'll run. Theoretically it should work fine but I'm sure the overhead in resources is more than XP Pro. One of the things I've been waiting for was the SP1 to be released. I really don't plan on not using XP for a long time to come but I do expect some software updates to be specifically tailored for Vista over XP.

My laptop is SEVERELY underpowered by today's standards. It's only a 1.7ghz single core machine. I'm going to replace it next year with a dual or possibly quad core laptop that has both BD and HD DVD support. :D Nonetheless, even with my lowly 1.7ghz and 2 gigs of ram Vista performs quite well for me. Of course, I'm one of those sick OS tweakers you read tales about. ;) I've tuned this thing about as well as it'll get. No complaints even in games...surprisingly. Of course, with this hardware I'm not running anything higher than HL2 and Doom3 on this thing. My kids both have desktops that bury my machines. sigh. Like I said...next year.

DetroitBaseball

8th September 2007, 18:38

My laptop is SEVERELY underpowered by today's standards. It's only a 1.7ghz single core machine. I'm going to replace it next year with a dual or possibly quad core laptop that has both BD and HD DVD support. :D Nonetheless, even with my lowly 1.7ghz and 2 gigs of ram Vista performs quite well for me. Of course, I'm one of those sick OS tweakers you read tales about. ;) I've tuned this thing about as well as it'll get. No complaints even in games...surprisingly. Of course, with this hardware I'm not running anything higher than HL2 and Doom3 on this thing. My kids both have desktops that bury my machines. sigh. Like I said...next year.
Core 2 Duo is good enough for HD, you don't need a quad core.

SamuriHL

8th September 2007, 18:43

Core 2 Duo is good enough for HD, you don't need a quad core.

You underestimate the needs I may have for my next laptop I think. The more speed the better. However, we need software that can take advantage of the quad core architecture. By itself it's nothing more than a clever marketing trick. Until we get more software that can use it, it's not useful. However, when I want to re-encode that HD video, trust me, a core 2 duo is going to seem like the stone ages of computing.

DetroitBaseball

8th September 2007, 18:46

You underestimate the needs I may have for my next laptop I think. The more speed the better. However, we need software that can take advantage of the quad core architecture. By itself it's nothing more than a clever marketing trick. Until we get more software that can use it, it's not useful. However, when I want to re-encode that HD video, trust me, a core 2 duo is going to seem like the stone ages of computing.
A laptop with a quad core would cost a lot of money.

SamuriHL

8th September 2007, 18:54

A laptop with a quad core would cost a lot of money.

Today it would. Next year it won't. I spent 2 grand on this one. I'll budget probably close to that for my next one. I won't get it until it has *ALL* the features I want.

HD playback via HDMI 1.3a(or higher) including sound output
1080p native res(or higher)
whatever that new creepy video port is called that buries HDMI
express card(yawn)
sata 250 gigs or higher(yawn)
4 gigs of ram
Ideally a burner that can handle DVD, HD DVD, and BD.

That's my short list. There are a few other things this theoretical laptop will have to have. DX 10.x support, certainly.

So yes, until they can give me all that in an under 2k package, I'm all set with this one. Next year sometime I'm willing to bet someone pushes a laptop like that out.

oldjoe

9th September 2007, 13:26

My laptop is SEVERELY underpowered by today's standards. It's only a 1.7ghz single core machine. I'm going to replace it next year with a dual or possibly quad core laptop that has both BD and HD DVD support. :D Nonetheless, even with my lowly 1.7ghz and 2 gigs of ram Vista performs quite well for me. Of course, I'm one of those sick OS tweakers you read tales about. ;) I've tuned this thing about as well as it'll get. No complaints even in games...surprisingly. Of course, with this hardware I'm not running anything higher than HL2 and Doom3 on this thing. My kids both have desktops that bury my machines. sigh. Like I said...next year.

A 1.7 Ghz CPU and 2 G's of RAM is more than sufficient for most any task, using any OS and most any game. The only thing your laptop would lack, for gaming, is sufficient graphics capability and no amount of CPU speed or RAM will compensate for that.

SamuriHL

9th September 2007, 13:27

A 1.7 Ghz CPU and 2 G's of RAM is more than sufficient for most any task, using any OS and most any game. The only thing your laptop would lack, for gaming, is sufficient graphics capability and no amount of CPU speed or RAM will compensate for that.

"Most any task"....right, except HD transcoding. Which no current CPU is fast enough for. I think people are underestimating just how much processing power HD video takes...

DetroitBaseball

9th September 2007, 15:24

HD transcoding is a long long ways away for me. By then, they will have CPUs that can do it efficiently.

SamuriHL

9th September 2007, 15:28

HD transcoding is a long long ways away for me. By then, they will have CPUs that can do it efficiently.

It's a year away for me. Think back to the early days of DVD and how horrifying that was for most machines to handle. We had hollywood real magic cards because we needed custom hardware to handle mpeg2 decoding. Now it's built into every onboard video card. In a few years HD will be built in, as well. But for transcoding, we need powerful CPU's and fast disk. In a year, I suspect we'll be pretty close to those goals for at least marginally "fast" results. I'm not looking for realtime, but, less than 3 days would be nice. :)

DetroitBaseball

9th September 2007, 15:31

It's a year away for me. Think back to the early days of DVD and how horrifying that was for most machines to handle. We had hollywood real magic cards because we needed custom hardware to handle mpeg2 decoding. Now it's built into every onboard video card. In a few years HD will be built in, as well. But for transcoding, we need powerful CPU's and fast disk. In a year, I suspect we'll be pretty close to those goals for at least marginally "fast" results. I'm not looking for realtime, but, less than 3 days would be nice. :)
I probably won't even be getting a standalone player until next year. Then, I won't be able to get an HD-DVD burner with my computer until I get a new one which won't be for a few years. By then a lot of computers should have HD-DVD burners. Also better to wait since they get better and better. Faster speeds, etc.

SamuriHL

9th September 2007, 15:36

I probably won't even be getting a standalone player until next year. Then, I won't be able to get an HD-DVD burner with my computer until I get a new one which won't be for a few years. By then a lot of computers should have HD-DVD burners. Also better to wait since they get better and better. Faster speeds, etc.

Hence why I said I wasn't going to upgrade this laptop until *ALL* my needs are met. I generally will keep a laptop for 3 years. As for going to HD, well, I worked hard to get myself to HD this year. No going back for me. I've stopped buying DVDs now and will only get HD versions of things. Even Netflix I have set to BD and HD DVD over DVD. It makes a difference. HD gives a vastly improved experience. If you can wait, that's good. It will always get better. TVs that support HDMI 1.3a or higher will give you a great color experience. Good TVs will come down in price and give better performance. However, if you always wait for "the next best thing" then you never get to enjoy the technology. At some point you pull the trigger and jump in knowing that it'll be cheaper and better in a month. It doesn't matter. As long as you're happy with your purchase and it does what you want, the better/faster/cheaper nonsense doesn't really matter.

SamuriHL

10th September 2007, 22:28

http://global.acer.com/products/notebook/as9920.htm

That's CLOSE to what I'm looking for. You give them a year to improve and you're going to see a laptop that exceeds my expectations! That is a BEAST of a machine!!!!

DetroitBaseball

10th September 2007, 22:31

That is a BEAST of a machine!!!!
Totally agree. I wonder what the price is for it.

SamuriHL

10th September 2007, 22:32

Totally agree. I wonder what the price is for it.

I'm not going to look. :) I guarantee it's over 3 grand. Far too much for me. But, again, in a year, that thing will be affordable and standard feature set on even their midrange laptops. So what I'm asking for may seem ridiculous today, but, a year from now will all be "yawn" technology.

DetroitBaseball

10th September 2007, 22:34

I'm not going to look. :) I guarantee it's over 3 grand. Far too much for me. But, again, in a year, that thing will be affordable and standard feature set on even their midrange laptops. So what I'm asking for may seem ridiculous today, but, a year from now will all be "yawn" technology.
That's a downside to technology. You buy something new and a few weeks later it becomes outdated. Then you have to keep up and get the new thing, well some people do. It's hard to constantly stay on top unless you have a lot of money.

SamuriHL

10th September 2007, 22:40

That's a downside to technology. You buy something new and a few weeks later it becomes outdated. Then you have to keep up and get the new thing, well some people do. It's hard to constantly stay on top unless you have a lot of money.

I don't have that need anymore. Once I bite the bullet and buy something I'm quite pleased with it. The reason is I research whatever it is I want to buy and make sure I'm getting the best bang for the buck at the time. Take my Sony SXRD HDTV. I got it for 1800 bucks. 50" LCoS TV with remarkable PQ. If I look now I can find it for under 1500 and there are far better TVs out there now. It doesn't bother me in the least. I'm still enjoying the hell out of this TV and will do so for years to come. My Inspiron I've had for 2 and a half years now and love it. 3 years is a LONG time for me to keep a machine. I made sure that I got a machine that was going to last that long and not be outdated in a year. That's the same thing I plan on doing with my next laptop. The things I'm asking for may seem insane now, but, in 3+ years? It'll seem like a joke compared to what's out. So I tend to go a little over the curve, spending just a bit more to get a little extra, which will then payoff during end of life of that machine. Hence why I can run Vista on my Inspiron now and not have any problems with it. You just have to know what you want, find what matches your requirements for a price you can live with, and pull the trigger. Once you do, don't second guess it just because "the next new thing" comes out. There's ALWAYS a next new thing. That's what makes this industry great! :)

DALE31

13th September 2007, 08:31

Just found this article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6319845.stm
which basically reflects my personal opinion.

I enjoyed reading the article from the link. It was very informative. I had several questions for you.
1) I have Any DVD and Clone DVD and they are on my Windows XP Pro and they work great. I just had a computer customized and I opted for the Windows Ultima software.
Q...Will the Any DVD and Clone DVD work on Vista?
Q...In the article it says that Microsoft can remove programs. Is this referring to the Mocrosoft OS and some adware and spyware OR does this also mean programs like ANY DVD and CLONE DVD can be removed by Microsoft.
2) When the new computer arrives...will I be able to transfer or I think the term they used is migrate everything over from XP to Vista? OR do I need to reinstall Any DVD and Clone DVD on the new computer.:bowdown:
THANK YOU
DALE

SamuriHL

13th September 2007, 09:19

I enjoyed reading the article from the link. It was very informative. I had several questions for you.
1) I have Any DVD and Clone DVD and they are on my Windows XP Pro and they work great. I just had a computer customized and I opted for the Windows Ultima software.
Q...Will the Any DVD and Clone DVD work on Vista?
Q...In the article it says that Microsoft can remove programs. Is this referring to the Mocrosoft OS and some adware and spyware OR does this also mean programs like ANY DVD and CLONE DVD can be removed by Microsoft.
2) When the new computer arrives...will I be able to transfer or I think the term they used is migrate everything over from XP to Vista? OR do I need to reinstall Any DVD and Clone DVD on the new computer.:bowdown:
THANK YOU
DALE

A...AnyDVD and CloneDVD work just fine in Vista.
A...MS is not going to remove applications like AnyDVD and CloneDVD. Lawsuit ;)

You will want to install AnyDVD and CloneDVD fresh on the Vista machine. Hopefully you backed up your registration information when you bought them.

Clams

11th October 2007, 19:08

That's a downside to technology. You buy something new and a few weeks later it becomes outdated. Then you have to keep up and get the new thing, well some people do. It's hard to constantly stay on top unless you have a lot of money.

Ya... I just built THREE identical machines: (home, work, HTPC)

CPU: P4 3.2g (Hyperthreading)
Mobo: ASUS P4P800-E (king of the 478 mobo's)
RAM: 2g PC3200 DDR400
Video: Nvidia 6200 256m
Audio: On-board Realtek 8 channel with SPDIF out
HD: A pair of 250 SATA per machine
Optical: One DVD-RW and one DVD-ROM per machine.
Cases: New POWMAX 450W light up cases.

And with creative use of Ebay and my existing drives - I built all three for under $700. This at the same time my buddy built one state of the art screamer for $1400. He's got a great machine... but for 1/2 the clams, I got THREE really good machines - that will handle Vista (if I'm forced) and will handle HD with no problems.

-W

oldjoe

18th October 2007, 09:40

Ya... I just built THREE identical machines: (home, work, HTPC)

CPU: P4 3.2g (Hyperthreading)
Mobo: ASUS P4P800-E (king of the 478 mobo's)
RAM: 2g PC3200 DDR400
Video: Nvidia 6200 256m
Audio: On-board Realtek 8 channel with SPDIF out
HD: A pair of 250 SATA per machine
Optical: One DVD-RW and one DVD-ROM per machine.
Cases: New POWMAX 450W light up cases.

And with creative use of Ebay and my existing drives - I built all three for under $700. This at the same time my buddy built one state of the art screamer for $1400. He's got a great machine... but for 1/2 the clams, I got THREE really good machines - that will handle Vista (if I'm forced) and will handle HD with no problems.

-W

If the PSU's came with the PowMax cases I would very strongly suggest replacing them. PowMax PSU's are very low quality.

Clams

20th October 2007, 08:09

If the PSU's came with the PowMax cases I would very strongly suggest replacing them. PowMax PSU's are very low quality.

Yes, you're not the only one to note this. So far.... I've had no trouble with any of the PowMax units. That said, I remain suspicious of them as they seem way too light for a good 450W supply. I'm running ASUS PC-Probe on the trio, and it would alert me of any supply deviations from normal range.

-W

kristy34c

16th December 2007, 07:35

No, you don't. Don't buy the game. It is very simple. Buy a different game instead.
The manufacturer of the game sitting on the shelves will react, you can count on this. :agree:

EDIT:
Yes folks, you can vote with your purse. It is all about money. If you see a movie on BR you want on HD DVD - write the studio, that they lost a sale. (Same the other way round).
If you see a game you want to buy, but which requires Vista: Write the manufacturer, that they lost a sale.
If you see a shareware program requiring activation: Write the author, that he lost a sale.
If you just buy everything, even if you are forced to do things you actually don't like, you are a stupid lemming who doesn't deserve it better.

I Respectfully Disagree.. :disagree:

we had the same arguments from Windows 3.1 users not wanting to upgrade to XP.. why are you not still running win3.1 ? you literally have no choice ... here's why

a good friend of our family works for MS on the windows core dev team.. the basic dev mindset is: we are working on the next release of windows client to replace Vista , (win7.0, vienna, blackcomb -or whatever it's called this week)there is no point in fixing the bug in Vista. forget XP. it's RTM date was over 6yrs ago 10/25/2001 meaning it's 10yrs old in dev time.

For large enterprise customers that complain enough and need a Vista fix.. all current bugs are now marked ... Postponed to SP2 as Vista SP1 is in RC1.

MSFT used to stop all support & hotfixes 18months after a new OS was released.. obviously that can't do that now-a-days.. meaning XP would be SOL in 6months from now... they have extended the time until 04/14/2009 (or 17months from today) After XP SP3 ships, getting a post SP3 hotfix done a customer will have to provide a strong business case & pay the dev costs.. associated with the fix.. in the past the min cost was $50,000 per hotfix - this was enough to deter all but the largest corporations.

http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifepolicy

"ok ... I'll switch to Linux on the desktop... (or whatever else)"
the problem here is Drivers - people just want there PC's to work. unless your a geek.. it's too hard... there is hope with Apple now on Intel chips.. not sure how AnyDVD works in vista running parallel on a MAC with leopard :agree: - I guess the only reason I don't own a MAC is I'm worried about game performance.. athough Electronic Arts (EA) says popular times are moving to native MAC.. email, chat, video, itunes is better with apple.

it's the same argument of 32 vs 64bit drivers.

64bit processors are now standard. the problem is getting a 64bit driver for your hardware because (unlike 32bit) a 64bit driver has to be digitally signed by MSFT before it will actually install on your PC. eventually you wont be able to buy a 32bit client OS meaning if your HW doesn't have a 64bit driver.. no one will buy it. - the only saving grace here is Virtual PC technology

more insight inside MS on hotfixes..
http://www.winsupersite.com/faq/xp_sp3.asp

James

16th December 2007, 08:13

we had the same arguments from Windows 3.1 users not wanting to upgrade to XP.. why are you not still running win3.1 ?
Because Windows 3.1, 95, 98, ME ... all sucked, that's why nobody *wants* to run them.
The correct question would be "why aren't you still running Windows 2000" and the answer is
1.) HD DVD playback
2.) Problems with very big harddisks
3.) Boot time

So I had a real reason to switch to XP, so I did. At the moment (and the near future) I see no reason to switch to Vista.

goodfriend

27th December 2007, 03:00

I use windows xp , I think it is good enough .

ajafuta

29th December 2007, 06:04

One of the few products I really enjoy using is Slysoft products, they always work and never crash, and the customer support and updates are fantastic. I would like to suggest a paypal option on the slysoft page. I purchased AnyDVD a few years ago and as soon as AnyDVD HD was available purchased that immediately and paid I full price, not the upgrade price. The reason I did this is to give more money to AnyDVD and I think more users would be willing to paypal you money, even if only $5-$10 on occasion to continue development of the products we love.

Your products enable us to use our products we paid for!!! Without you folks we may as well pull out our old VHS tapes...LOL

Just a suggestion and let me say if I see the paypal option I will be the first to donate and perhaps even write it off on my taxes as a charitable contribution:agree:

Charlie

29th December 2007, 11:45

ajafuta

30th December 2007, 03:27

Well then, how about a donate via mastercard or visa option? Perhaps the highest donor for the month could recieve a T-Shirt or have a feature request considered within reason? Or just keep a running list like they do for fundraisers. Just a suggestion to enable more dollars the for research and development department.

Have a Great New Years Everyone!!!

SlyFox 1

30th December 2007, 16:46

If you have purchased Slysoft products you have already helped. They appreciate your business and your input. Thankyou and have a Happy New Year.:agree:

RpD

13th January 2008, 23:27

The lead post suggests not upgrading to Vista because of an article that complains of Piracy protection, Spyware protection, and Content protection.

First... yes, I'm tired of all the DRM B.S. too, but...

Piracy protection... so we can't copy one Vista install to all our home PC's like we did with Win98, boohoo. Yes, if we do a significant upgrade on our PC's there may be a re-activation hassle... for some. If we constantly change our hardware, then I guess we're never satisfied... or we're a developer who should understand how to deal with it.

Spyware protection... if Windows Defender screws over the customer by trying to kill off programs like AnyDVD and such, MS will lose thousands, if not millions of customers. Some people read too much into the fine print. It's good to be paranoid... but Defender is more to protect the PC than it is to be a software cop. When that changes... we'll definitely hear about it.

Content protection... if you want Hi-Def, then go buy those high end pieces of equipment so you have an end-to-end seamless HD experience. Regular DVD quality is good enough for most, and downgraded Hi-Def is probably better than regular DVD's. If you want Cadillac quality on your Volkswagen PC... you're probably too cheap for Hi-Def anyway.

Those are 'potential' issues for the paranoid... or the bleeding edge perhaps. For most of us, Vista works just fine...

I agree we need to keep their feet to the fire, but that's not stopping me from enjoying Vista.

Ok, flame on.

oldjoe

14th January 2008, 10:27

Yes, Vista will "work fine for most" and the problems you have listed will be resolved in time.
The main point being..... why purchase an OS that works "just fine for most", requires way to much resources (CPU-RAM-HDD space) to operate, and is considerably overpriced when XP does all that is required. There is no "benefit" to Vista for anyone but MS.

Pelvis Popcan

22nd January 2008, 03:55

First... yes, I'm tired of all the DRM B.S. too, but...

I guess you're one of those people who have no problem letting a big company like Microsoft dictate what you can and cannot do with your own personal hardware and software that you pay for with your own money.

Good for you.

Pelvis Popcan

22nd January 2008, 03:56

There is no "benefit" to Vista for anyone but MS.

There's DX10, but despite the great eye candy, it's just not worth all the other negativities that come with Vista.

SamuriHL

18th February 2008, 11:06

Since this thread was revived (sorta), I just wanted to let everyone know that on my laptop I've reverted to XP. I've not done so on my HTPC because for what I use the machine for Vista's behaving nicely, but, on my laptap I started getting BSODs every time I'd copy a file over the network. I tried many things to fix it and finally gave up. I'm actually happier with the performance of this machine under XP. It's far "snappier". Vista really is a pig. I'm running SP1 on my HTPC and it doesn't seem to make much of a difference in terms of performance. I've tuned the machine so it's not a real problem but I can see where the complaints come from. Vista's certainly not winning many fans out there, that's for sure.

RpD

18th February 2008, 18:10

Pelvis Popcan...

Yes I like to be told what I can/can't do... NOT. Really.... come on. I strongly believe in Fair Use.

The cited article just paranoically whined about inability to make multiple home O.S. pirate copies, run-away spyware protection programming that starts disabling consumer selected products that some Orwellian 'authority' bans... and content protection on high def leading edge digital equipment. I simply haven't bought any DRM HARDWARE yet... I don't have any 'flagged' players/displays. And so my software works fine... -Vista- too. I use MP3's, yes I use Slysoft... what DRM dictate? I just find blanket M$ 'Windoze', or any other brand, bashing to be foolish flaming. Vista works and lots of people like it... I'm one. Excuse me. I like XP but not enough to downgrade... I did an upgrade to an XP desktop and a two year old still worthy notebook, and the Vista-fied notebook works exceptionally fine... which was a surprise given the greater speciality of notebooks. But I recommend a purchase upgrade and not an install upgrade unless you're tech oriented.

I guess James' warning for many people here on Slysoft forums -will- be applicable because they're running hard/software that is likely to be DRM challenged... but not everyone, so I can't see blanket 'sky is falling' warning against Vista.

Trying not to rub y'all the wrong way, but I just don't (yet) buy DRM equipment...

What I find objectionable is the penchant to surreptitiously 'downgrade' digitally displayed content, via Vista copy protection 'compliance' subservience to -Hollywood-, on otherwise HD capable equipment... That's where Vista would fail me, but again I don't have a lot of HDCP/DRM challenged digital hardware... yet.

Otherwise, yes, all hail MS world domination... for not allowing OS copies at home and supposed predatory spyware protection.... we am Microsoft, resistance are... all your bases.

SlyFox 1

18th February 2008, 18:45

Vista is a resourse pig and everybody knows it even MS, thats why Windows 7 is in beta1 already, by 2010, Vista will just be another WindowsME.

stinman>=

18th February 2008, 20:13

Well I just bought a GatewayGM5654 with a AMD 9600 quad core processor and Vista Home premium for a fair price. I had a Dell E310 which served my needs barely. To get this machine with XP installed instead of vista it would have been
an arm and a leg. I like it so far,it has the GGC H20n multi drive (blu-ray/Hd-dvd/dvd/cd) It also has Power DVD ultra 7.3.3014(I think thats the right number)It will play movies from the hard drive.It keeps asking me to update and I say NO!I hate to hear these posts after I spent all this money:o Oh well it's all I could get

oldjoe

18th February 2008, 20:22

But I recommend a purchase upgrade and not an install upgrade unless you're tech oriented.

I'm confused by your references...."purchase upgrade"........"install upgrade".
If you are referring to a purchased PC with Vista previously installed vs. installing Vista I am even more confused. Vista is Vista, XP is XP, '98 is '98 and so on.
How, where or by who it is installed will have no effect on the OS.
A purchased PC, with the OS pre-installed, will include even more bloat and garbage than what is included with the OS install disc.

Matt

23rd February 2008, 20:35

I'm gonna wade in here and say the same thing that most other people have already said.

Vista is AWFUL. Clunky, slow and restrictive - to the point where you're basically being spied on. However, I want to play new games, with shiny graphics on my expensive desktop which I built for playing the aforementioned new shiny games. Oh and backup my movies too (thanks Slysoft devs :)).

However, on my lesser PCs, and my laptop, I run Linux. The only two things I can't do under it is play the latest and greatest games and backup my DVDs. Honestly, unless people need to do either of those things, they don't need Windows.

But, there's no converting most people away from Windows, not many people want to re-learn how to admin their own PC. Let me try and think of a nice conclusion...

Ok got it - if you're using Windows, you're doing it by choice. You can't use an old O/S forever and you'll have to upgrade eventually, Microsoft aren't going to make "Windows 7" less secure than Vista, they'll lock it down more and if they're smart they'll hide it better.

Less QQ and more moving away from Microsoft is in order if you don't like the software and business practices.

SlyFox 1

24th February 2008, 11:02

Just wait a few more years and you will see Windows7 ( only if you give MS more money) but it may just include fixes that Vista should have had already. WinXP will be supported until 2013, I will stick with it until its dead and in its grave.;)

zebadee

24th February 2008, 11:04

Roundtree

24th February 2008, 18:20

Greetings to you all,

I was just browsing this forum when I read your comment stating that WinXP will be supported until year 2013. Are you saying that based on having read an official Microsoft announcement?

I ask because all of the software that I am now using with WinXP are working perfectly. I have no reason to purchase Window's Vista. My needs are satisfactorily met using WinXP.

My computer will be four years old this summer and I am planning to purchase a new one this coming Christmas season when computers sell at very good prices here. Do you know if the newer pc's which use dual core processors, DDR 2 SDRAM (for example) , and the more advanced graphic cards such as GeForce 8800GT(and others) will work OK under WinXP?

Thanks for whatever helpful comments you may have.

Matt

24th February 2008, 18:34

Microsoft's support of XP is neither here nor there IMO. It's tHe software and hardware vendors that'll drop it.

As for your question Roundtree, yes, newer PCs run fine under XP, however if you get an 8800 then DirectX 10 won't work under XP, you'll be stuck with 9.

oldjoe

24th February 2008, 19:41

Microsoft's support of XP is neither here nor there IMO. It's tHe software and hardware vendors that'll drop it.

Hardware is not OS specific and software isn't really a major concern. Most softwares that are developed for Vista should work with XP. Vista is basically an updated XP.

khlb

18th March 2008, 16:47

oldjoe

18th March 2008, 18:48

Ok, with Vista SP1 out -
http://forum.slysoft.com/showpost.php?p=96055&postcount=1

- maybe we now *can* upgrade to Vista ? yes ?!? no?!? :)

Are there posted any slipstreaming guides for Vista on the 'net?

Yes, it is "out" but don't look for any major differences or "majic" fixes. It's still Vista.
Slipstreaming Vista should not be any problem...follow the same procedure as with any other OS.

Clams

18th March 2008, 23:51

Ok, with Vista SP1 out -
http://forum.slysoft.com/showpost.php?p=96055&postcount=1

- maybe we now *can* upgrade to Vista ? yes ?!? no?!? :)

Vista is not an upgrade. Think of it as something you'll eventually have to settle for if you buy a new PC. If you have a good XP machine, leave it a good machine. :)

-W

linus2003

19th March 2008, 00:57

Blu-Ray *and* Vista are the devil.

oldjoe

19th March 2008, 09:13

My computer will be four years old this summer and I am planning to purchase a new one this coming Christmas season when computers sell at very good prices here. Do you know if the newer pc's which use dual core processors, DDR 2 SDRAM (for example) , and the more advanced graphic cards such as GeForce 8800GT(and others) will work OK under WinXP?

Everything you have now, and will have, will all work more than well with XP.
If you "purchase" a new PC it will most likely come with Vista installed.

Frank

19th March 2008, 10:35

You should be aware that there is no real technical reason for DX10 not running under XP or Windows 2000.
Microsoft doesn't *want* this, because they *want* you to buy Vista.
If you do, they have succeeded. If nobody does, the software publishers will beat Microsoft long and hard to release DX10 for XP.

Okay, I am living in a dream world... :o

Hats off to you James!! :clap:

That is on my list of reasons NOT to get Vista. I refuse to be pushed into buying something with no technical justification. This is just another example of how Microsoft manipulates the user.
And they understand only one thing: when nobody buys it they react.
read: Windows 7 and 8 announced as "on the way", downgrade licenses from Vista to XP, and other bone-headed Billy-Boners.

Clams

19th March 2008, 10:41

See my post under Jame's origional post. DX10 cannot work with Vista as the graphics pipeline is totally incompatable. There MANY reasons to hate Vista - but the DX10 issue isn't one of them.

-W

Webslinger

19th April 2008, 11:12

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/37020/140/

lol

Gringoyle

10th July 2008, 23:30

and I suppose theres no way to turn big brother off.... humm getting to like xp more and more :D

The programs that Windows have enabled for vista can be disabled in msconfig like allways the point is for some people: like my mom how cant have me there all the time to keep good PC health and maint. going so Vista just doesnt let it happen

I love Vista the easyest windos opp yet but i know how to use it and im used to windows programs and how they work security wise thankfully if you dont need all the prental controls you turn the off,Vista is still personal PC freindly

Charlie

29th July 2008, 09:50

With all the hear say over Windows Vista one company took a poll on what users thought about Windows Vista. First they were asked how they feel or know about Windows Vista and as it bleeds all over the net that same hear say went around the world to all people. So one project was to have 22 hidden cameras to first say what they think about Windows Vista and everyone said they hate it as it constantly crashed and just didn't work. Might I add none of these people really ever tried it but was just stating what was said to them. Then they got to test the new Mojave Experiment pronounce Mo-Hau-Va. All these people were psyched to give it a go. See the ending results and the shock on these peoples face by watching the flash video below.

The "Mojave Experiment" (http://www.mojaveexperiment.com/)

nesNYC

19th November 2008, 06:21

Yeah! Me too! The trick to Vista is that you have to have over 2gigs of memory and all apps designed for it. XP apps and the UAC are not compatible as are the XP drivers under any "compatiblity" mode in Vista.

Basically, my set up is 4 gigs of ram, no paging file and I turned off prefecth. Also, 'disablepagingexecutive' is set at '1' and that forces all drivers to reside in memory. That one trick will speed everything up even better than XP.

Once you tweak your start up to fire up as few programs as needed during boot up, you're good to go. My Vista set up takes about 30 seconds to fully boot as opposed to a minute or more on some XP systems. I never crash as all the software I have on my machine is Vista compatible.

The only problem I have is with the sleep function as it seems to be incompatible with my nVidia card.

Other than that, it works excellent! It took a bit of a learning curve to learn the tweaks but once in place, vvvvoooooooommmmmm ... I'm flying better than with XP and rock steady to boot.

Here's some good registry tweaks:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Contro l\Session Manager\Memory Management

DisablePagingExecutive from 0 to 1
LargeSystemCache from 0 to 1

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Contro l\Session Manager\Memory Management\PrefetchParameters

EnablePrefetcher 3 to 0
EnableSuperfetch 3 to 0

Remember, you HAVE to have over 2 gigs for the above tweaks or you'll end up with a slower system. These tweaks store feaquently used code in physical RAM so disk access with go to a minimum.

Also, use defender's "software explorer" to disable uneeded start up programs. A good idea is to also turn off the indexing service by disabling "Windows Search" in you services manager.

Also, a good OS reload from time to time won't hurt if you know what you're doing. You especially need this if you like to install a lot of trialware crap that doesn't remove the trash from you registery. This is true for XP as well. The freaquent "crashes" that happen can usually be attributed to and over fed registery :D

I love Vista the easyest windos opp yet but i know how to use it and im used to windows programs and how they work security wise thankfully if you dont need all the prental controls you turn the off,Vista is still personal PC freindly

MDOC

8th January 2009, 12:07

I got my Vista Ultimate package direct from Microsoft 100% free in two flavors: x32 and x64. I bought a x64 machine 2 yrs ago, so I installed the x64, of course.

I don't have any personal problems with it.

Those that do are simply prejudiced. There's nothing wrong with preferences, but I don't live by mere preference. But those who like the fast life are always preferential over things and will argue over it because it's their conceived notion of "others should see it my way, because it's better."

oldjoe

8th January 2009, 23:23

People that are knowledgeable about PC's realize it is nothing more than a highly overpriced XP with a lot of added fluff and bloat.
It's a resource demanding OS that requires, at the expense of the buying public, expensive hardware to accomplish the same ends that XP will accomplish for much less. XP will still be offered for purchase until at least May of 2009 so the major manufacturers can offer a reasonably priced PC with an OS, that will function efficiently and effectively with economical hardware, at a reasonable price.
MS threw Vista out to appease the masses and prepare for Windows 7.

oldjoe

19th January 2009, 10:41

Yet another good reason NOT to buy Vista. Windows 7 Beta was released to the public Jan. 9th. It is what Vista should have been. It's still the disorganized mess that is Vista but there are also a LOT of noticeable improvements.

Adbear

19th January 2009, 10:51

We've been using Vista for over a year with no problems at all, we even install it on all our systems now that drivers are out for the editing cards, and they work much better

Charlie

19th January 2009, 15:05

Sad to say Win7 is nothing more than what vista should of been. However it is still heavily hardware resourced as vista is. Some improvements but really over all no change.

oldjoe

19th January 2009, 16:43

Sad to say Win7 is nothing more than what vista should of been. However it is still heavily hardware resourced as vista is. Some improvements but really over all no change.

Quite the contrary! You might consider taking a look at the two OS's and do some actual comparisons. Look at the space of the Windows Folder in Vista and 7 and you will see a quite noticeable difference in size.
7 demands much less hardware than Vista. 7 demands and uses much less resources than Vista. It boots in less than half the time of Vista & shuts down even faster. In fact, it boots faster than one of my PC's that has the "Lite" version of XP Pro that I use for DVD authoring.
I installed 7 Beta on a lowly D/C 2Ghz Celeron with 1G of PC 5400 DDR2 RAM and it literally flies.
Is is most definitely what the purchasers of Vista should have gotten instead of the bloated hardware demanding OS that they paid for.

Charlie

20th January 2009, 09:13

oldjoe

20th January 2009, 10:20

Well I am glad you think so, I noticed the vice versa on my end and that is what I am basing my thoughts on as performance was increased, Boot up is not noticable transfering from one HDD to another is a bit faster but not too noticable. I actually need more horsepower to get the equivelent of what performance I get on Vista.

It has nothing to do with what I "think". What I have posted is fact and is agreed upon by most everyone who is using Windows 7 Beta.
Data transfer is dependent on hardware performance not the OS. Perhaps that's the source of your confusion?

I, as well as most that I have read about, am enjoying superior operation with 7.

Adbear

20th January 2009, 12:09

Well we're obviously not everyone you know, I've tested 7 on 2 i7 systems, 2 different makes of laptop and a few desktop systems and have so far found that boot up times are around 10 seconds longer for 7 than for Vista business 32 with just the basic drivers installed. So yes it does have something to do with what 'you think'

Also I have it on my own personal laptop and the windows folder in Vista (after installing all the software I use, drivers for external devices etc) is only 1GB larger than the one for Windows 7 which has nothing installed other than basic drivers for the laptop itself.

oldjoe

21st January 2009, 10:36

Actually it has nothing to do with what I think. My posts are actual facts that I as well as most others have experienced.
There are blogs and reports abundant on the net from testers and users who are enjoying the benefits of 7 and experiencing the same results as I.
Google is your friend.

Adbear

21st January 2009, 11:22

It does have to do with what you think, I'm a system builder which is why I have the ability to try it on different desktop and Laptop systems and have yet to see any real benefit of Windows 7 over Vista. Load times are no quicker on clean builds, and windows folder is not that much smaller. This is what I think from my own experiences with it. So far my colleagues and other people we deal with who are also testing Windows 7 are coming up with pretty much the same results, that so far there are no real benefits to Windows 7 other than it looks pretty

Charlie

21st January 2009, 20:34

damnskippy

21st January 2009, 22:21

7 is faster on all 4 systems I have tried it on so far. I look forward to it's release.

SamuriHL

21st January 2009, 22:28

ron spencer

22nd January 2009, 14:22

there is no need for wither 7 or Vista...XP runs, and has no issues....get a virus scanner and firewall and you are set...I see no benefts fpr 7 or vista other than having to buy a new machine LOL.....

bluemeanietsi

22nd January 2009, 14:25

I like that my cpu utilization in 7 is 0-1% when idle rather than 15-20% with vista.

oldjoe

22nd January 2009, 14:38

Why is this even a discussion? Windows 7 is a freaking beta for crying out loud. MS has a history of making decent betas and RC's that end up sucking on the first release. 2k, XP, etc...all better in RC than in release. Betas and RCs don't include everything that'll make it into the final release. Comparing a beta at this stage to a full blown released OS is pointless. Wake me up when Windows 7 is in final RC or better yet released with full drivers that take advantage of everything it has to offer. (Yes, I know, Vista drivers will "work" on Windows 7. However, working and optimized for are two different things.)

In any case, let's keep the "fact" vs "opinion" straight. Until a final release is out the door, it's ALL opinion from my point of view. You can give me all the benchmarks in the world "proving" how much better Windows 7 is, but, it's still just a beta. Which means nothing to me.

The thread title is "Maybe you should not upgrade to Vista" and Windows 7 is certainly a very valid reason NOT to "upgrade" to Vista. In Beta form, 7 has already proven itself to be a leaner and superior OS compared to Vista.
Vista drivers are not necessary for the most part as many software and hardwares have Beta version to work with 7.
None of what I have posted is from benchmarks......it's all from my experience and many others who are posting on many reputable forums.

SamuriHL

22nd January 2009, 14:40

None of what I have posted is from benchmarks......it's all from my experience and many others who are posting on many reputable forums.

Then it's NOT FACT, it's opinion. Hence you shouldn't label it as "absolute fact".

oldjoe

24th January 2009, 10:29

Then it's NOT FACT, it's opinion. Hence you shouldn't label it as "absolute fact".

Based on personal usage from professional qualified users "experiences", not form blogs and forums, NOT from benchmarking or controlled environment testing.

Fact: defined as something that is true, something that actually exists, or something having objective reality that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation.

SamuriHL

24th January 2009, 10:40

Still opinion. A fact to me is something that can be quantitatively proven. As set of reliable benchmarks run on the exact same hardware that show a marked improvement. The so called "professionals" often get it wrong. I'm glad their "experiences" show an improvement and that opinion does hold weight, but, it should not be taken as fact. There is a difference and it's not just semantics. There's an actual meaning behind fact vs opinion. I have no doubt that W7 is better, but, comparing a beta to a fully released OS is useless. Not all the code has been added to W7. What happens when in the final RC they decide "well, time to cram all the new DRM code in there" and all the so called performance gains are lost? I personally don't think an early beta of a product is reason enough to not upgrade to Vista now. But, that is opinion, not fact. I'm quite pleased with Vista on my machines. But I know how to tweak it and set it up correctly so that it runs well and without problem. W7 will introduce its own share of issues. All new OS' do. The current hype and "this will save MS" attitude I'm seeing around the web is beyond ridiculous. When all is said and done, W7 is just Vista with a tweaked interface. If Vista was so horrible, then they'd have thrown out the whole thing and started over. Obviously Vista is not nearly as bad as it's made out to be. The UI is the issue, not the kernel. This was proven when W2k8 Server was released as it's generally 15-20% faster than Vista using pretty much the same kernel. Personally I feel like we're getting screwed by having to pay for W7 all over again as though it's a "new" OS. So they tweak the UI and make things a bit faster and better. This COULD be done in a Vista SP quite easily. All the lemmings are eating up W7 as some kind of savior OS. Go ahead....pay for something that IMO should be released as a free update in an SP. I couldn't care less as I get it with my MSDN subscription anyway, but, I genuinely feel bad for anyone who's buying into the hype and thinks it's worth shelling out a couple hundred bucks to upgrade.

Adbear

24th January 2009, 10:46

I am a professional user, I build systems for a living, and get to test many setups, like I said in my previous post, and the facts as I see them is that there's no real benefit to Windows 7 over Vista at this point in time. It hasn't proven to be much leaner (500MB-1GB install size difference is not that big a difference in size and even that shrinks to smaller depending on the system) Boot up times so far have proven to be about the same if not longer. It's just as easy if you look round the net and on forums to find many people saying this as it is to find people with your view of it.
And I have to agree with SamuriHL's post, you have no idea what extra crap they're going to throw in as it's still way to early with to many people getting wildly differing results to state things as complete fact, Everything at the moment is just facts as each individual sees them

oldjoe

26th January 2009, 11:42

Still opinion.

Believe what you choose but it remains factual none the less.

Fact: defined as something that is true, something that actually exists, or something having objective reality that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation.

Adbear

26th January 2009, 13:03

And it's still fact that on all the systems I've tried it on it's has no real benefit over Vista at this point in time

Charlie

26th January 2009, 17:52

And it's still fact that on all the systems I've tried it on it's has no real benefit over Vista at this point in time

Ditto actually on my high end system well mid-high Vista is faster.

oldjoe

27th January 2009, 14:08

Ditto actually on my high end system well mid-high Vista is faster.

How can an OS be slower on a faster system? :D :confused:

ocgw

27th February 2009, 19:49

How can an OS be slower on a faster system? :D :confused:

2 words

Resource hog

piss on Windows 7 and Vista, 64bit XP Pro ftw

ocgw

peace

SamuriHL

27th February 2009, 20:10

2 words

Resource hog

piss on Windows 7 and Vista, 64bit XP Pro ftw

ocgw

peace

Trust me when I say you won't feel that way forever. ;)

PrincipalityFusion

27th February 2009, 22:53

Trust me when I say you won't feel that way forever. ;)

Honestly, from the sound of his other posts, he would believe that only to have something to argue with someone else about.

ocgw

28th February 2009, 00:34

Honestly, from the sound of his other posts, he would believe that only to have something to argue with someone else about.

Honestly, spoken like a true lemming lol j/k

Somebody once asked me if I had a good reason NOT to switch, to which I replied, "shouldn't I need a good reason TO switch" (spend my money)

In the end Sammy is right, I will be forced to pay for this upgrade:rolleyes: (lateral move at best) because all the other lemmings did

Remember the discussion about what constitutes a "fact", it is a demonstrable fact that XP sp3 is faster than Vista, and Windows 7 isn't finalized, so my willingness to debate aside, there is pretty solid ground for my position

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xp-vs-vista,1531-11.html
http://news.cnet.com/Windows-XP-outshines-Vista-in-benchmarking-test/2100-1016_3-6220201.html
http://www.geek.com/articles/news/windows-xp-testing-faster-than-vista-in-2008-2007124/
http://lifehacker.com/5076370/windows-7-preview-boots-20-faster-than-vista
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9065458
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/03/why_is_windows.html
http://www.pcworld.com/article/139911/early_tests_say_sp3_speeds_windows_xp.html
http://www.mobilecomputermag.co.uk/20071128181/windows-xp-faster-than-vista.html

You thought I was makin' this chit up? lmao

btw the only thing I see in Vista is a pretty desktop, & I already have Webshots w/ 800 pics for free

pss. I got my phenom II @ 3.8Ghz 24/7 100% load stable running BD Rebuilder @ ALL HIGHEST SETTINGS turning out BD-9's in 7hrs that you could never tell from the originals in side by side testing son;)

:bowdown::bowdown:

The moral of the story is, "properly done you can have compression w/o loss of "quality" if an unnecessarily high bit rate was used in the source material"

"Lead, follow, or get out of the way"

"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't all out to get you"

ocgw

peace

Adbear

28th February 2009, 04:06

My answer to that is just because you can't see the difference between the original Blu-ray and a BD9 doesn't mean that others can't. I'd never shrink anything down to a BD9 as there will always be loss of picture quality no matter what you think.

Also you may want to go back and check those articles, many are well over a year old and in some cases 2 years old and in some they even say that Vista is faster from a cold boot. And at least 3 of the articles you linked to are referencing the same source for their claims, a company who tested it on 1 laptop.
In one of the articles they demonstrated it as a fact that from standby XP was quicker, but from Cold boot Vista was quicker.

I also want to be able to use a more stable 64bit version of windows, 64bit XP is buggy as hell, and no one bothers to write the software or hardware drivers for editing hardware for it due to that reason.
I hardly call it being a 'lemming' because we want to use something that works better, is more stable, and having read through the articles you posted seems to be faster running more applications from cold boot

ocgw

28th February 2009, 04:23

My answer to that is just because you can't see the difference between the original Blu-ray and a BD9 doesn't mean that others can't. I'd never shrink anything down to a BD9 as there will always be loss of picture quality no matter what you think.

Also you may want to go back and check those articles, many are well over a year old and in some cases 2 years old and in some they even say that Vista is faster from a cold boot. And at least 3 of the articles you linked to are referencing the same source for their claims, a company who tested it on 1 laptop.
In one of the articles they demonstrated it as a fact that from standby XP was quicker, but from Cold boot Vista was quicker

1) Have you ever shrank a blu ray down to BD-9 w/ BD Rebuilder @ the highest quality setting to KNOW for yourself, I have already stated that I have NEVER seen a blu ray shrink job that looked good until I tried it, but then again, I took absolutely no shortcuts;)

I rebuilt my PC solely to accomplish this specific task8)

2) I still have not heard a compelling reason to switch from a known proven OS other than all the other lemmings are doing it

I argued your point for a full year, and after being argued down by many I decided to see for myself, time to get back in front of the learning curve

Lead, follow, or get out of the way

ocgw

peace

Adbear

28th February 2009, 04:40

Yes I have, and it still doesn't look as good as the original Blu-ray unless the original is pretty crappy in the first place. There's a reason why the bitrates are so high which is always lost when shrinking down, especially when using something like BD rebuilder. even using x264 and manually setting everything using your own command lines you get a loss of quality. It's very rare you get complete transparency to the original unless you're looking at something like an mpeg2 original in which case you may be able to shrink it down without much loss. Try running them side by side on decent screens (50inch plus) and you'll start to see the difference, colours change slightly, the BD9 can look slightly softer, in high motion you get slight blocking or blurring that wasn't there in the original. A lot of things can only be seen when watching the film in motion and aren't that perceptible when looking at still shots

I've already given a good reason to go to Vista, stable 64bit operation, and as stated in 1 of the articles you posted faster running of operations from cold boot on a higher percentage of programs than under XP

The same could be said about 'lemmings' who are staying with XP because someone wrote an article 2 years ago saying Vista was rubbish and therefore they don't even try it. You will always get people who go one way or the other without ever finding out for themselves. I've done extensive testing my self (it's part of my job) and find no speed benefits to XP over Vista and like I said Vista 64 is much more stable than XP 64

ocgw

28th February 2009, 04:51

Yes I have, and it still doesn't look as good as the original Blu-ray unless the original is pretty crappy in the first place. There's a reason why the bitrates are so high which is always lost when shrinking down, especially when using something like BD rebuilder. even using x264 and manually setting everything using your own command lines you get a loss of quality. It's very rare you get complete transparency to the original unless you're looking at something like an mpeg2 original in which case you may be able to shrink it down without much loss.
I've already given a good reason to go to Vista, stable 64bit operation, and as stated in 1 of the articles you posted faster running of operations from cold boot on a higher percentage of programs than under XP

We will just have to agree to disagree on the first point, I am a convert, but I will tell you 1 thing if I had not seen it w/ my own eyes I would have bought 2 more 1500GB HDD's w/ my $300+ USD I just spent on my new cpu and hsf

On the 2nd point, XP Pro 64bit is stable in my PC thank you very much;), sorry 'bout your luck

ocgw

peace

Adbear

28th February 2009, 04:59

ocgw

28th February 2009, 05:31

but then you're probably not trying to use it with any real 64bit apps like editing software and 64bit hardware that's designed to take advantage of 64bit windows. Sure if you just install xp64 and use it just like that then it's unlikely to crash, but if you then want to use any halfway decent editing, or authoring packages then they just don't work well. There's a reason why they steered clear of 64bit XP and that's was due to it being to unstable for them to use properly. It caused them so many problems trying to get the software working that they dropped it in favour of an operating system that is much more stable
It has nothing to do with my 'luck' I build editing systems for a living and have tested extensively and found XP64 to be very unstable when using in the realworld editing environment which is why it was never really used for anything like that

I am not impressed, I have been shooting and editing video for 15 years w/ various editing software, been building and selling PC's for 10 years

XP 64bit just hasn't given me any problems sir

What else can I tell you

btw "They" are still building and selling expensive High-end professional Windows XP Pro Turnkey quad xeon video editing solutions everyday for ppl that aren't "impressed" w/ Vista either, so I don't know where you get your information from sir, just thought you should know

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/487180-REG/B_H_Photo__Adobe_Production_Premium_CS4.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/462171-REG/B_H_Photo__Avid_Liquid_Pro_7_0.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/514375-REG/B_H_Photo__Avid_Media_Composer_v3_0.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/487181-REG/B_H_Photo__Matrox_RT_X2_with_Premiere.html

From what I have seen "serious" video editors don't even use Microsoft OS's

btw, my reencodes still aren't softer, blocky, or blurred, I can see pores in their pores, and I see well enough to have scored expert rifle in the US Army LOL

ps pls tell me you know that Windows XP 64bit Pro is based on Windows Server 2003, a known stable 64bit platform

ocgw

peace

Adbear

28th February 2009, 07:33

I'm not impressed that you can shoot a rifle.
I get my information from building high end editing systems for nearly 10 years. 3 of the links you gave are for software only systems with no hardware cards involved and don't state whether they use 32 or 64bit windows. The fourth one is still using CS3 which is no longer sold with the RTX2 unless they have some old stock still lying around for which you won't be entitled to the free upgrade as it ran out before christmas
To say that serious video editors don't use MS OS's is just wrong, we sell systems to TV and film companies as well as Advertising companies, and they all use PC based systems due to the lack of restriction and better realtime performance you can get out of them.

As far as I'm aware Avid liquid never had any real Vista support as they stopped developing it and have no intentions of taking it further at this time.
Avid Media Composer doesn't support XP64 but does support Vista 32 and 64
The RTX2 only got 64 bit drivers in the CS4 drivers so it isn't supported under XP 64 in that package. And the CS4 suite is not validated to work on XP 64 either.
If they were really serious about what they sell they'd be offering 64bit Vista so you can take advantage of the extra memory, especially with the CS4 suite and Media composer, and offering more up to date systems to run on than q6600 CPU's that run at 2.4ghz with 4GB of RAM

ocgw

28th February 2009, 07:42

Adbear

28th February 2009, 08:01

You were the one who made the links as proof, I just pointed out the flaws in the systems they are building.
Just go to the Avid website, it's on there for OS's for Media Composer.
Go to the Adobe site for the supported OS's for CS4
CS3 never had official support for 64 bit windows of any kind and therefore neither did the RTX2
For liquid I found that these guys had posted this:
http://www.dvc.uk.com/acatalog/Avid_liquid.html
which is essentially the same as the internal email we got direct from Avid/pinnacle. We've still not seen or heard of even a beta of the new software which leads us to believe that they aren't giving it any real priority and may not even bother as they weren't happy about Liquid being in competition with media Composer.

But then if you've been building systems for 10 years you shouldn't need my links as you should now which OS's the software and hardware is supported under

ps. If you are unaware of the superior vision it takes to score expert rifle in the US Army (only 12 of the 160 men in my basic training unit scored expert) that is your ignorance (read lack of knowlege) And I'm still unimpressed as it really has no bearing on the Vista/XP issue and to be honest I've had enough people in the past who make claims and turn out to be false that I never believe them, I could just as easily say I'm an astronaut.

bottomline: they make money selling that chit that you said they never really made I never said they didn't build systems under XP, I said that they didn't get 64bit support under XP

ocgw

28th February 2009, 08:26

You were the one who made the links as proof, I just pointed out the flaws in the systems they are building.
Just go to the Avid website, it's on there for OS's for Media Composer.
Go to the Adobe site for the supported OS's for CS4
CS3 never had official support for 64 bit windows of any kind and therefore neither did the RTX2
For liquid I found that these guys had posted this:
http://www.dvc.uk.com/acatalog/Avid_liquid.html
which is essentially the same as the internal email we got direct from Avid/pinnacle. We've still not seen or heard of even a beta of the new software which leads us to believe that they aren't giving it any real priority and may not even bother as they weren't happy about Liquid being in competition with media Composer.

But then if you've been building systems for 10 years you shouldn't need my links as you should now which OS's the software and hardware is supported under

And I'm still unimpressed as it really has no bearing on the Vista/XP issue and to be honest I've had enough people in the past who make claims and turn out to be false that I never believe them, I could just as easily say I'm an astronaut.

I never said they didn't build systems under XP, I said that they didn't get 64bit support under XP

You are the one questioning my vision by saying repeatedly that you can see things that I can't, well I offered info about myself that would lead a normal person to conclude I do indeed have superior vision (and being 1 of 12 in a group of 160 ain't exactly comparable to being an astronaut)

And I am glad you brought up the issue of integrity, I wasn't going to go there, but now I am going to call BS when you say you ran BD Rebuilder @ highest settings to see if you can get a BD-9 w/o visible flaws "just to see", I think you already had your mind made up about it from your experiences w/ compression in the past and don't really know, I think you just believe it strongly

ocgw

peace

Adbear

28th February 2009, 08:59

Nope, I have used it, I even use the x264 using command line so I can do my own tweaks rather than using their front end and if I'm doing encodes from h264 into x264 down to BD9 I and others I work with can definitely see the difference. I've been using x264 since before the BD rebuilder came out either thru megui or by command line so it's nothing new to me, Admittedly it has got a lot better, but not to the extent that it's transparent to the original when taking h264 or VC-1 down to BD-9 even on multi passes.

Oh and the reason I don't tend to believe about the vision is because it's exactly the same line that gets trotted out across various HD forums when someone is trying to claim that their vision is better therefore what anyone else is saying is wrong. If the quality is good enough for you then fine, but I deal with High bitrate and uncompressed HD every day and can definitely see the difference between the x264 compression to BD-9 and the original sources on the high bitrate Blu-ray's I've tried it with which is why I never shrink the main movie down

ocgw

28th February 2009, 09:34

SamuriHL

28th February 2009, 10:31

still not switchin' to Vista until I have to lol

ocgw

peace

There will come a day when you will see the value in doing so. Trust me. :)

ocgw

28th February 2009, 10:44

There will come a day when you will see the value in doing so. Trust me. :)

noooooooooooooooooooooooo......................... lol

ocgw

peace

SamuriHL

28th February 2009, 10:48

Oh yes, believe me, you will want to be on Vista or Windows 7 at some point in the future. Guaranteed. ;)

PrincipalityFusion

28th February 2009, 14:12

Honestly, spoken like a true lemming lol j/k

Somebody once asked me if I had a good reason NOT to switch, to which I replied, "shouldn't I need a good reason TO switch" (spend my money)

In the end Sammy is right, I will be forced to pay for this upgrade:rolleyes: (lateral move at best) because all the other lemmings did

Remember the discussion about what constitutes a "fact", it is a demonstrable fact that XP sp3 is faster than Vista, and Windows 7 isn't finalized, so my willingness to debate aside, there is pretty solid ground for my position

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xp-vs-vista,1531-11.html
http://news.cnet.com/Windows-XP-outshines-Vista-in-benchmarking-test/2100-1016_3-6220201.html
http://www.geek.com/articles/news/windows-xp-testing-faster-than-vista-in-2008-2007124/
http://lifehacker.com/5076370/windows-7-preview-boots-20-faster-than-vista
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9065458
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/03/why_is_windows.html
http://www.pcworld.com/article/139911/early_tests_say_sp3_speeds_windows_xp.html
http://www.mobilecomputermag.co.uk/20071128181/windows-xp-faster-than-vista.html

You thought I was makin' this chit up? lmao

btw the only thing I see in Vista is a pretty desktop, & I already have Webshots w/ 800 pics for free

pss. I got my phenom II @ 3.8Ghz 24/7 100% load stable running BD Rebuilder @ ALL HIGHEST SETTINGS turning out BD-9's in 7hrs that you could never tell from the originals in side by side testing son;)

:bowdown::bowdown:

The moral of the story is, "properly done you can have compression w/o loss of "quality" if an unnecessarily high bit rate was used in the source material"

"Lead, follow, or get out of the way"

"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't all out to get you"

ocgw

peace

Well, if being a lemming means moving to an OS that offers me real advantages over the previous OS that i was using, then a lemming i am. I tripple boot with XP, Vista (Primary), and Win 7 and Vista does operate better than XP on my system. Windows 7 is about the same right now, but i really think that it will perform better than Vista as they make performance tweaks before release.

Sure, lemmings follow each other of a cliff because they don't think about what they are following. The difference here is that you have a group of people who for the most part research what they want to buy and see real benefit in it.

If you really want to jump on a lemming bandwagon, then that would be all the Vista haters who claim that "Vista sucks" or "Vista uses all my memory" or "I hate Vista, it sucks". Those, in my opinion, are the people who are blindly following the crowd without even really trying Vista.

For one, TMT works much better on Vista than on XP and i've had a much better stable Vista Media Center experience than i've had with the Media Center in XP. I'm not as old as you claim to be, but i'm old enough to know that being unwilling to try new things because you've heard that they suck always keeps you from growing, learning, whatever.

ocgw

28th February 2009, 17:18

Well, if being a lemming means moving to an OS that offers me real advantages over the previous OS that i was using, then a lemming i am. I tripple boot with XP, Vista (Primary), and Win 7 and Vista does operate better than XP on my system. Windows 7 is about the same right now, but i really think that it will perform better than Vista as they make performance tweaks before release.

Sure, lemmings follow each other of a cliff because they don't think about what they are following. The difference here is that you have a group of people who for the most part research what they want to buy and see real benefit in it.

If you really want to jump on a lemming bandwagon, then that would be all the Vista haters who claim that "Vista sucks" or "Vista uses all my memory" or "I hate Vista, it sucks". Those, in my opinion, are the people who are blindly following the crowd without even really trying Vista.

For one, TMT works much better on Vista than on XP and i've had a much better stable Vista Media Center experience than i've had with the Media Center in XP. I'm not as old as you claim to be, but i'm old enough to know that being unwilling to try new things because you've heard that they suck always keeps you from growing, learning, whatever.

Look, I have always been willing to try new things, maybe I am being narrow minded bro', so go ahead, school me on why I need this, I will listen, I will speak my mind but I know I am in the midst of a talented bunch, that's why I am here, sorry if I am abrasive some times, I always regret it

Now I do dual boot 32bit/64bit, and a OS that is more HTPC friendly is a temptation. honestly we haven't spoken on the most appealing OS to me, MCE and you just brought it up8)cool

I am most interested in a idiot proof interface that my wife will embrace

tell me more

btw I am not ashamed to say I will turn 45 this year

"I don't smoke dope,
I don't chew rope,
I don't dance, prance or romance
I've been to Maine, Spain and Spokane, Fort Wayne
three World Fairs, around the world twice,
seen goats fvck in the market place,
but I have never seen chit go on any place
like the chit I've seen go on around this place"

ocgw

peace