PDA

View Full Version : Former Vista User


Pages : [1] 2

hewlett
02-23-07, 10:49 PM
Bought it.. Used it..liked it! But moved my game back to xp pro and my 8800gtx with it.Much better for now.


:)

I may not have DX10 right now but 2 badass cards and the drivers r ok in xp!
maybe in a few_ more months micro will optime my Ultimate Disk's i bought?
anyway good luck guys

Keleka
02-23-07, 11:29 PM
Bought it.. Used it..liked it! But moved my game back to xp pro and my 8800gtx with it.Much better for now.


:)

I may not have DX10 right now but 2 badass cards and the drivers r ok in xp!
maybe in a few_ more months micro will optime my Ultimate Disk's i bought?
anyway good luck guys


All the games i currently play with the exception of Ghost Warrior Advanced Warfighter work perfectly fine on Windows Vista. Granted i had to rebuild my system *laughs* but, it gave me reason to upgrade to a uber system. I have no complaints at all other then sleep don't work right now but i have great faith Nvidia will fix it very soon. If your system can handle Vista and yeah it is demanding its very fast. Much more efficient, secure and stable then XP is not to mention it looks better and i thought XP was a nice facelift to the 9xkernel.

I don't know when but, its only a matter of time when a game requirement will be Directx 10. Game developers aren't gonna use Directx9 thats for sure.. Vista is here to stay and it would be stupid for games coming out from this point on not to use Directx 10. So we have two choices. Suck it up and upgrade or procrastinate. To each their own.

iron99
02-24-07, 04:41 AM
. So we have two choices. Suck it up and upgrade or procrastinate. To each their own.

I take option 2, and wait for SP1 for Vista. Hmmmm, will likely be at least 100 bucks cheaper by then also!

Bearclaw
02-24-07, 04:56 AM
I take option 2, and wait for SP1 for Vista. Hmmmm, will likely be at least 100 bucks cheaper by then also!
Agreed, I am waiting for it to get cheaper....hm

hewlett
02-24-07, 09:24 AM
All the games i currently play with the exception of Ghost Warrior Advanced Warfighter work perfectly fine on Windows Vista. Granted i had to rebuild my system *laughs* but, it gave me reason to upgrade to a uber system. I have no complaints at all other then sleep don't work right now but i have great faith Nvidia will fix it very soon. If your system can handle Vista and yeah it is demanding its very fast. Much more efficient, secure and stable then XP is not to mention it looks better and i thought XP was a nice facelift to the 9xkernel.



True That... But never the less,I have used both OP's and xp still loves the 8800gtx's better!

Igor01
02-24-07, 03:17 PM
Why not just dual-boot? Harddrive space is ridiculously cheap these days.

Slammin
02-24-07, 05:02 PM
Yup. Dual booting makes it much easier to go into that unknown.

Keleka
02-24-07, 08:43 PM
You know over there years since DOS 2.0 or so with every OS upgrade people said the newest one is more buggy and slower for what not.. The newer is usually more efficient and faster but the problem is that hardware and driver developers are behind the curve on drivers most times. Creative for example has to my knowledge always played catch up to operating systems just like they are doing this moment. It's easier to fault MS though isn't it :P...

I agree on price but, I paid 160 bucks and some change for Microsoft Vista Home Premium. I think the falicy in that is its MUCH more then just an upgrade. Its comparable to the upgrade from 98 to XP. The OSes are nothing alike and the same can be said for XP and Vista. XP doesn't precache to ram to my knowledge. When i click on Windows Mail as an example my hard drive don't get paged at all because its already cached to ram. Games load faster also fyi for the very same reasons. Video drivers are playing catch up but hey they are making ground up fast.

I consider the price paid for a NEW OS not an upgrade tbh. I forgot what i paid for XP Home when i bought that OS. I'm certain it was 100 bucks+ I know one thing. Hardware manufacturers are all smiles knowing that people are gonna be spending big dollars for machines capable of running Vista flawlessly and those trying to upgrader older machines to be able to run it ok.

DX10 only on Vista? The only people really losing money is us consumers lol ;) Its gonna suck for people without Vista when the game is written for DX10 alone. Buy hey gamers do what they have to do to play the games they want at MAX settings ;)

Keleka

Gort
02-24-07, 08:51 PM
Developers will be single-pathing for DX9 much more than DX10, for the next year or two. Heck, most newer DX9 games still play ok on DX8. Who are you trying to scare into Vista? Don't get me wrong, I use Vista and XP, but saying that is just rediculous.

Peter

Shamrock
02-24-07, 09:16 PM
So we have two choices. Suck it up and upgrade or procrastinate. To each their own.

Correction, you have 3 choices.

LINUX!

Riptide
02-24-07, 09:33 PM
i thought XP was a nice facelift to the 9xkernel.
:headexplode:

Mike89
02-25-07, 10:15 PM
I'll get Vista when it's a "must have". Right now for me it's not even close to being that. XP runs too good for me right now to just chuck it. I need a good reason to get Vista, right now I just don't have one. I figure it's going to be at least a year, maybe Vista will look better for me then than it does now. For the time being, I'll continue to use and enjoy the trouble free system I have now.

Keleka
02-27-07, 12:36 PM
Developers will be single-pathing for DX9 much more than DX10, for the next year or two. Heck, most newer DX9 games still play ok on DX8. Who are you trying to scare into Vista? Don't get me wrong, I use Vista and XP, but saying that is just ridiculous.

Peter

It wasn't my intention to make it sound like a scare into vista thing just a reality. Rumor control has recently said that they will release a Directx 9.0L version thats a watered down version of Directx 10 i can't remember where i actually read this. The truth remains regardless unless you have a DX10 video card you won't benifit from it at all. I'm playing my older DX9 games on Vista for what its worth.

I don't agree with everything MS has done in Vista but its the future OS that most software will now be built around from here on out.

Keleka
02-27-07, 12:40 PM
Correction, you have 3 choices.

LINUX!

I gave Linux a try couple years back. I decided i wanted to use the OS and not program it :P.... I actually have hoped that somebody would dream up an OS to unseat Wild Bill and Microsoft. Linux hasn't done it and niether has Mac. Windows is still the best and most used and accepted OS in the world as we know it. That isn't gonna change in the forseable future.

Kaguya
02-27-07, 12:43 PM
Suck it up and upgrade or procrastinate. To each their own.[/SIZE]

I don't think that's a fair assessment at all. Currently I'm dual booting Vista and XP, but I don't play any games in Vista right now mostly because there isn't support for all of my hardware. So I don't think myself, or people who are currently gaming in XP, as procrastinators... we simply don't see a need to do 100% of our operations in Vista yet.

To be honest, after dual boot I have only gone into Vista a handful of times. Aero looks nice and all, but there's nothing going on in there that I need to have Vista for. Once DX10 games are more available, and nVidia drivers and my other hardware support improves, I'll spend more time in Vista. Eventually on my next build I'll just run Vista with no XP.

But to call us procastinators really isn't fair ;)

nekrosoft13
02-27-07, 12:46 PM
Agreed, I am waiting for it to get cheaper....hm

just like Xp didn't go down on price, so will vista

Shamrock
02-27-07, 09:35 PM
I gave Linux a try couple years back. I decided i wanted to use the OS and not program it :P.... I actually have hoped that somebody would dream up an OS to unseat Wild Bill and Microsoft. Linux hasn't done it and niether has Mac. Windows is still the best and most used and accepted OS in the world as we know it. That isn't gonna change in the forseable future.

Oh really? Have you used it "recently"? It's EASIER to use than Windows, my computer illiterate cousin can use it just as easy as Windows...Not to mention you don't need an Intel Core Duo just to run Aero...Beryl runs on an Intel 800Mhz!

I guarantee you, you can navigate the internet just as easy with Linux, as you can Windows. The only problem you might have is games.

ahheadlock
03-01-07, 12:35 AM
Dual booting is the way to go. I just use XP for games and keep vista for everything else. I figure I'll give gaming in Vista another crack when a DX10 game comes out, by then DX10 cards should be cheaper and the drivers will be more mature.

jsimmons
03-01-07, 05:04 AM
Oh really? Have you used it "recently"? It's EASIER to use than Windows, my computer illiterate cousin can use it just as easy as Windows...Not to mention you don't need an Intel Core Duo just to run Aero...Beryl runs on an Intel 800Mhz!

I guarantee you, you can navigate the internet just as easy with Linux, as you can Windows. The only problem you might have is games.

Ahhh... a zealot.

Linux Pros:

1) Installing is getting easier (Fedora Core 6 has a really nice installer)

2) *Default* installations are at least as easy to use as Windows, if not just a little more so (depending on what version of Windows we're talking about).

3) Linux is cheaper than Windows - probably the biggest benefit since Vista Ultimate costs $400 for a single install

4) You can run a lot of older Windows apps via Wine.

5) Linux can do all of the Vista eye-candy with fewer available resources, but with a high-end machine, it does it better than Vista.

6) I installed Fedora Core 6 on one machine, and then transferred the hard drive into a different machine with a completely different set of hardware components. It booted right up without complaint. Try that with XP, and you'll probably be forced to do a format/reinstall just to get the machine to boot.

Linux Cons:

1) Need to install proprietary codecs separately.

2) Need to install Windows core fonts (let's face it, linux fonts are butt fugly) separately.

3) Using Wine is terribly difficult and beyond many users' ability to deal with.

4) For the most part, bye-bye gaming beyond the super-popular stuff that a lot of "normal users" don't play.

5) Setting the machine up to play DVDs is a freakin' nightmare for "normal users".

6) Linux users, as a general group are extremely unhelpful to first-time users, to the point of being just plain nasty.

7) Documentation on the net generally sucks (severely out-dated or non-existent How-Tos).

8) Installing many of the more obscure pieces of software is a nightmare of dependency issues that "normal users" aren't equipped/willing to deal with. If it's not handled by Synaptic (or whatever package manager you're using), it becomes too much of a hassle to deal with.

9) Too much of the nuts-n-bolts Linux use requires the command line. Most of today's "Normal users" have never seen a DOS prompt, having been spoon-fed through a dumbed-down Windows UI. From their viewpoint, ALL operating systems should be just as dumbed down. Linux does not fit this description.

10) In order to get all the Vista-like eye-candy, the user has to install accelerated video drivers and mysterious stuff called Beryl (still experimental).

11) The almost complete absence of drivers for specific hardware components, especially for newer hardware. The recent offer by kernel programmers of free driver development might help this, but I haven't heard yet of any hardware manufacturers that are taking them up on their offer.

In other words, Linux isn't for everybody. In fact, Linux isn't for most people. Linux has a wonderful opportunity to shine in the face of the way over-priced and highly quirky Vista. However, I doubt the Linux camp be able to exploit this advantage. They claim they want to take market share from Microsoft, yet they're unwilling/unable to assist joe-blow-user toward this end.

There really is no compelling reason to move to Vista for about 99% of the home-users out there, but there's even less of a compelling reason for users to make the wholesale move to Linux.

CaptNKILL
03-01-07, 05:20 AM
Ahhh... a zealot.

Linux Pros:

1) Installing is getting easier (Fedora Core 6 has a really nice installer)

2) *Default* installations are at least as easy to use as Windows, if not just a little more so (depending on what version of Windows we're talking about).

3) Linux is cheaper than Windows - probably the biggest benefit since Vista Ultimate costs $400 for a single install

4) You can run a lot of older Windows apps via Wine.

5) Linux can do all of the Vista eye-candy with fewer available resources, but with a high-end machine, it does it better than Vista.

6) I installed Fedora Core 6 on one machine, and then transferred the hard drive into a different machine with a completely different set of hardware components. It booted right up without complaint. Try that with XP, and you'll probably be forced to do a format/reinstall just to get the machine to boot.

Linux Cons:

1) Need to install proprietary codecs separately.

2) Need to install Windows core fonts (let's face it, linux fonts are butt fugly) separately.

3) Using Wine is terribly difficult and beyond many users' ability to deal with.

4) For the most part, bye-bye gaming beyond the super-popular stuff that a lot of "normal users" don't play.

5) Setting the machine up to play DVDs is a freakin' nightmare for "normal users".

6) Linux users, as a general group are extremely unhelpful to first-time users, to the point of being just plain nasty.

7) Documentation on the net generally sucks (severely out-dated or non-existent How-Tos).

8) Installing many of the more obscure pieces of software is a nightmare of dependency issues that "normal users" aren't equipped/willing to deal with. If it's not handled by Synaptic (or whatever package manager you're using), it becomes too much of a hassle to deal with.

9) Too much of the nuts-n-bolts Linux use requires the command line. Most of today's "Normal users" have never seen a DOS prompt, having been spoon-fed through a dumbed-down Windows UI. From their viewpoint, ALL operating systems should be just as dumbed down. Linux does not fit this description.

10) In order to get all the Vista-like eye-candy, the user has to install accelerated video drivers and mysterious stuff called Beryl (still experimental).

11) The almost complete absence of drivers for specific hardware components, especially for newer hardware. The recent offer by kernel programmers of free driver development might help this, but I haven't heard yet of any hardware manufacturers that are taking them up on their offer.

In other words, Linux isn't for everybody. In fact, Linux isn't for most people. Linux has a wonderful opportunity to shine in the face of the way over-priced and highly quirky Vista. However, I doubt the Linux camp be able to exploit this advantage. They claim they want to take market share from Microsoft, yet they're unwilling/unable to assist joe-blow-user toward this end.

There really is no compelling reason to move to Vista for about 99% of the home-users out there, but there's even less of a compelling reason for users to make the wholesale move to Linux.
:clap:

seppuka
03-01-07, 06:44 AM
'tards, Linux is fine, if I choose the right Distro I can shoot down 99% (suse anyone?) of those cons listed. Games, yeah fine, lots don't work, but gee, having to give COD2 root access, any self conscious home user not to mention net/sys admin would cringe at the thought of allowing punk buster unfettered access to core system files, yet, we don't think twice about doing it on our XP/Vista machines.

jsimmons
03-01-07, 01:13 PM
'tards, Linux is fine, if I choose the right Distro I can shoot down 99% (suse anyone?) of those cons listed. Games, yeah fine, lots don't work, but gee, having to give COD2 root access, any self conscious home user not to mention net/sys admin would cringe at the thought of allowing punk buster unfettered access to core system files, yet, we don't think twice about doing it on our XP/Vista machines.


You can "shoot down" as many as you want, but the simple fact of the matter is that Linux simply isn't ready for joe-blow-average user. If you want to see Microsoft go down in flames, or simply want more people to embrace Linux as a usable OS, it actually has to *become* more usable by the less proficient users out there. The people that are ready and willing to adopt Linux already have. It's the other 99% of the non-Mac user base that you have to convince.

It's not that Linux isn't a decent OS, because it is. It's just not acceptable for Windows users in its current state. It has to become more like Windows than Windows is. I'm not saying that's right - I'm merely stating the reality of the situation.

Now, you Windows users can go back to their comfy little GUI and expect to be spoon-fed everything they get from Microsoft, and you Linux users can go back to making pointless screen shots showing obscure shell scripts running in semi-transparent windows that overlap a FireFox window showing these forums and the obligatory instance of The Gimp showing and image they didn't create themselves.

There's nothing to see here.

Riptide
03-01-07, 01:31 PM
http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/48409524/m/703001863831

A thread I started that some of you might find interesting.

seppuka
03-01-07, 01:34 PM
This is not the time or place to continue this topic which will be forever fought between the well meaning unix and windows user. rebuttal after rebuttal, what's the use.

-- sep lays the linux vs windows topic to rest --

grey_1
03-01-07, 02:23 PM
http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/48409524/m/703001863831

A thread I started that some of you might find interesting.
Excellent thread Rip, good discussion of facts.