Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Hardware and Software => Topic started by: firbal on April 09, 2008, 07:59:51 PM
-
I am in the process of buying parts for a new system. Was going to stay with XP. But I plan on useing this system for the next 4 or so years. My present one I built 4 years ago with some upgrades over time.
So the question is, over time, 64bit may be what I may need to go with. I would like to stay with XP. But Vista seems the only OP I have to go with to play the game I have and are coming out with. So is Vista getting stable enough to put out the money on and still play AH on?
-
I'm going to be upgrading my PC to an E8400 and will stick with XP Pro.
Windows 7 is slated for release in 2010 which will make Vista a non-factor. XP Pro will be supported until 2014.
My suggestion? Go with XP Pro until at least Windows 7 is released. Don't buy into Vista, it'll be gone before you know it.
-
Actually Masher, MS is targeting 2009 for the Windows 7 release, but most folks are just saying 2010 is probably more realistic.
-
Interesting that I was considering the same thing yesterday. I'll have a spare Core 2 Duo laying around after tomorrow (replacing with E8400) and was thinking of building another system with 64 bit Vista.
I guess I'll hold off a while.
-
Seems Vista is headed into that realm where Windows ME ended up. Cannot happen soon enough for me.
-
Actually Masher, MS is targeting 2009 for the Windows 7 release, but most folks are just saying 2010 is probably more realistic.
I almost put that in my post Roy, I just didn't want to "increase the deadline" and get you all in any trouble. So I went with the "Official Release Year" so to speak.
<<S>> bud
-
No problem. I think 2010 is more realistic as well, but MS is sure wanting to get passed the debacle that is Vista. I mean, how many companies introduce FUD to thier own product?
-
No problem. I think 2010 is more realistic as well, but MS is sure wanting to get passed the debacle that is Vista. I mean, how many companies introduce FUD to thier own product?
MS has done it with every product since Win98. They're good at it. :D
-
I was looking at newegg last night and saw that they XP in 64bit for sale there. So I can stay with XP after all.
Some of the people seem to think that people are staying with XP is that it is famular to them and don't want to chance. As for me, I don't care one way or the other. I don't buy the new M$ OP when it comes out because they are all buggy when they are release. Usely after about 6 months or so then I start looking at them. When XP came out, it took M$ awhile to get that fixed. Then it took gamers a long time to trust it not to say we had to buy new game controls because of the changes. But we are looking at almost a year and an half and it still they have not got it up to speed. Once again M$ really know how to do bussiness. :O
-
MS has done it with every product since Win98. They're good at it. :D
Yes, they are, but Vista has only been out there for a little over a year, and they are already announcing a replacement OS for it, 2 years before it is really ready to go. The last time this happened, it was when Windows ME was scheduled to be killed.
-
I was looking at newegg last night and saw that they XP in 64bit for sale there. So I can stay with XP after all.
Some of the people seem to think that people are staying with XP is that it is famular to them and don't want to chance. As for me, I don't care one way or the other. I don't buy the new M$ OP when it comes out because they are all buggy when they are release. Usely after about 6 months or so then I start looking at them. When XP came out, it took M$ awhile to get that fixed. Then it took gamers a long time to trust it not to say we had to buy new game controls because of the changes. But we are looking at almost a year and an half and it still they have not got it up to speed. Once again M$ really know how to do bussiness. :O
Ask yourself if you absolutely need over 4 gigabytes of memory to run some professional database application. If you're not going to do heavy data processing or render huge animations/movie scenes, stick with 32 bits.
XP64 is every bit as buggy and troublesome with drivers as is Vista64. And the real kicker is that you gain NOTHING except the ability to add more memory while losing most of the compatability of 32-bit XP.
-
MrRipley, thanks for your input. That is what I was looking for. Was wondering what I would gain with 64bit.
So how much memory can XP handle? And what is the largest hard drive it can handle also?
-
MrRipley, thanks for your input. That is what I was looking for. Was wondering what I would gain with 64bit.
So how much memory can XP handle? And what is the largest hard drive it can handle also?
Regular 32 Bit XP can see 3-3.5 Gigs of Ram. There's no limitation as to HD. I have a 250 gig, a 200 gig and a 160 gig in my machine.
-
Earlier releases of XP could only see 127GB of HD storage. Somewhere along the way, the 48 bit IDE drivers got put into XP. You do not want to try an upgrade that pre-48 bit driver version of XP. It ain't pretty.
-
We have the same argument every time Skuzzy, and you repeat the same points pulling out facts that I've never heard before. The point I was making is that for FSX (which can bring any system to its knees) now has multi core support and is a much better and faster experience for it. If I loaded XP onto this rig I wouldn't get half the frame rates I'm now enjoying with Vista + FSX.
I'm not going to go through all your points some are just plain out of date and incorrect. I don't know why you have such a dislike for Vista, yes you have some complaints from a work/operations perspective but to the degree as you describe is hard to believe. My list would reach to the moon if I started talking about Ecommerce Servers,Tandem,Unix and networks located in India all in a production EFT environment. All I'm saying is that Vista running on my rig has been faultless and now as more multi core/multi GPU support is being released for more applications/games it runs faster then if I were running XP.
By the way I never had any issues with XP either, have always built and over clocked my PC's and am also a professional in the business. Infact I've found FSX and Vista easier to configure, no need to edit every .cfg to peek performance just load it up and play on Ultra High settings.
Eventually everyone will have to move on from XP to take advantage of current (let alone) new hardware, applications,games etc. Cycle of development, no point trying to resist claiming the sky is falling. Yes of course there will always be initial issues just as there has been with every OS but through development these are ironed out and you have a solid future proof OS for some years.
<S>...-Gixer
-
The only thing you said worth agreeing on is the fact that eventually everyone will need to move away from XP. Thankfully Vista will be replaced before official support for XP Pro runs out.
The copy of FSX we have seems to run better on XP than it does under Vista. Easy to understand that one though. Different hardware, different drivers will almos always yeild different results.
-
See Rules #4, #5
-
Gixer Vista=WinME so give it a rest already. W7 will be a total rewrite of the core and a fundamental change in the way MS structures the OS. If it fails it's simply time to move on, get linux which will emulate Windows faster by then than the machines we have now.
-
See Rules #4, #5
-
Gixer, make mention of our game in such a derogatory, ignorant, and clueless manner again, and you will be banned from this board. You have no idea how the game works or what underlying technology is used. Just because it is efficient does not give anyone the right to belittle it.
If that is the best you can do in a discussion, then maybe you should just leave the board now.
-
I'm still considering whether to get another copy of windows xp pro. I still have 2 unused copies of windows xp home.
I have never used Vista. Don't plan on it.
Different thought: Not to schmooze up to Skuzzy, but this is the only game I play. It's worth my 15 bucks. I enjoy the people who play it like Faclon23, DCboss, LLogan, Warloc, Gusman, Jed, Dadsguns, 1plus44, and countless others. The help that many have given me in play and in computer knowledge cannot be measured. And all that started with a great game that keeps getting better and better.
What other game can you get feedback from the people who develop and run the game?!
-
I've not heard good things about XP64. If you're intent on 64 bit, then go with Vista64. Otherwise, go with XP 32bit.
So far, I've not had the problems everyone not using vista insists I should be having. It's very smooth and stable.
-
You have to wonder about that inconsistency. The only people I hear of having problems, beside my self (they got so bad we had to relegate the Vista box to a test only box), are the people I talk to everyday. Of course, only the ones with problems are going to call.
Many calls are people who just do not understand Vista has alot of overhead and requires more hardware to run at the same performance levels as XP. The truly frustrated ones are those who simply go from XP to Vista on the same hardware. Then there is the UAC (user access control) issues. I really do not see how anyone can like UAC, but I suppose there probably are those who find it useful.
EDIT: It really is pointless to discuss an operating system which is going to be replaced as soon as Microsoft can. Given the fact the XP Pro will be supported, by Microsoft, until Windows 7 ships. Why bother with Vista? In releasing a replacement so soon, one has to wonder how long Microsoft will continue to support Vista after Windows 7 is released. Just seems like an unneccessary gamble to go with Vista at this point in time.
If you are going to have to suffer growing pains, why do it with Vista, then again with Windows 7? I am all for moving forward, when it makes sense. Due to the nature of my job, I do not have the luxury of having a myopic view of any Windows based operating system.
-
Skuzzy, I know about 15 people that have loaded XP. All of them experienced computer users. I have not heard a complaint from any of them on anything except network drivers for wireless cards (cards out there that support it, but very few). That's not a group of microsoft rules guys, it's a group of people that just like trying new operating systems. All of them have experience with LINUX, UNIX and everything from microsoft. The only people I know who complain about how much Vista sucks (this is at work with a bunch of geeks) are people that have never loaded it.
I'm going to ask you a simple question that you don't need to answer: If you had a problem with a machine you just installed XP on, would you admit it in these forums? Think about the answer to that and you'll begin to see why I see your view on this subject as biased. You speak with great candor about the doomed vista system, but have you had an XP system that just didn't work well despite a clean install on a system that was working just fine before that clean install?
-
If I had a problem with XP would I say something? Sure I would.
All the work computers hare are running XP. Many different configurations of hardware and software. The systems were all built in-house. And in all cases, there has never been an issue with XP Pro. They all installed just fine. The latest configuration is an Intel E6750 with 2GB of RAM and an NVidia 9800GTX video card. Been rock solid.
HT has a Vista based laptop for a while. That was a nightmare. Could not get Vista off that computer fast enough. He hated it. Thing took forever to boot. Took even longer to load an application. XP Pro runs much better on that laptop. I have talked to many people who own laptops and they state they hate Vista on it, without me saying a word.
I have no reason to be biased. If something works well, I typically do not say anything. No reason to. But if something has problems I will say something. It does serve my interests and the interests of HTC to try to help people avoid problems up friont.
I have detailed my exact problems with Vista. I have duplicated each problem. I have reported them to Microsoft. I was not alone in all the problems I had reported. I did not have a lot of the problems that were reported.
I was the one who pushed to have a Vista system in house. I was the one who had to have it as my work computer so I could get familiar with it and any potential support issues we would have. What I did not expect was all the compatibility issues that would serve to prevent me from doing my job. The actual problems with Vista were secondary concerns.
I suffered the network sharing problems, which were supposed to be fixed in SP1 for Vista. It was not. This really hurt my ability to coordinate with everyone else in the office. I am on my second installation of the operating system so far just to be sure it was not a bad installation.
I suffered the printer issues which still have not been addressed. Never could get betwork printing to work as our betwork printer is tied to a Windows 2000 machine. Microsoft's answer was, "You will have to install Vista on that machine as well, but then the XP systems will not be able to use it". This was due to the drivers not being compatible with Vista. Everytime Vista tried to connect to the printer it insisted on downloading the printer drivers even though they were not compaitible with Vista.
I suffered the inability of the operating system to auto-update. The auto-updater would error out. I had to download and manually install patches. A bug that is supposed to be fixed in SP1. I have yet to be able to verify it has as I have had other issues to deal with.
Everyone with Vista suffers the UAC issues with our game that prevent the game from being patched without having to be 'Run as Administrator' (that is about as intuitive as handing someone a brick and expecting them to know they should break it open to get the candy). Yet, they can run the game normally without using that option, they just cannot find the game's data files when they want to send in a film or post a screenshot (by default, the 'AppData' folder is hidden from users). This one really hurts us and costs an enormous amount in support time. Sadly, this is not a problem in Vista. It is designed to work like that, so it will not be addressed. We can fix this problem by not installing the game in the 'Program Files' folder. Is that a fix? No, it isn't. It is one of many work-arounds we have for Vista that is not required for any other Microsoft operating system. Why? No good reason really. If you can work around it, then why is it implemented to begin with?
I suffered debilitating performance issues due to SuperBoost (or whatever the prefetch things is called) wanting to continuue to load things whole the game is running and then when the game needed to load something, a massive stutter would ensue. This is eventually going to force us to preload everything for the game. We have already seen other games that have gone that route as well. It will force us to change the minimum amount of RAM for Vista to 3GB in order for us to do that. Even though the game really does not need that much RAM.
I have more, but it is pointless to keep listing them over and over again. SP1 did not fix or address any of these issues. All the issues I had are still listed as bugs at Microsoft. This is not bias and I tire of being accused of it. I would be wrong not to mention the problems I have with any software. We run a tight ship and finding ways to circumvent problems before they become problems is a major part of what I do. All the issues I had forced me to build another computer with XP on it so I could do my job.
Will everyone have the same problems as I had? Absolutely not. The UAC issues will plague everyone though. The SuperBoost/Prefetch crap will effect some more than others, depending on how much is preloaded on the computer and how much RAM is installed. The inconsistency is expected due to the problems with drivers and Vista. Those should eventually go away. Until they do, consistency is just a pipe dream.
What do I detest about Vista the most? The amount of work it needlessly generates for me. Talking to frustrated people, everyday, and knowing there are many more that simply do not call and just give up, all due to the problems, both real and perceived, they have with Vista. Vista costs us business everyday and we know it. Does XP cost us business? I am sure it does. But due to the maturity of the operating system it will cost us less and the ones it does cost us are probably machines that need a fresh installation of the operating system anyway. Cannot say that for Vista.
So when someone comes in here and claims Vista is all peaches and cream, I will not hesitate to voice the problems I have had and continue to have with it. Problems that Microsoft acknowledges as well. I distrust the opinion of anyone that actually does not consider UAC to be a problem (as it is currently implemented), along with the other defaults Microsoft has chosen to force upon the unsuspecting public. UAC is a joke and nothing about it does anything to prevent what it is intended to prevent. My personal opinion on UAC is; It is a marketing-feel-good effort that adds bloat and more end-user frustration to an already bloated and frustrating operating system.
In the end, if I had these issues with Xp, I would be doing the same thing. When XP was first released, I did talk about the problems with it. I also knew they would be eventually addressed. However, with Vista, there are design choices in it which are not going to change. Many of those design choices are a problem that have to be worked around. Unfortunately, 99% (just a guess) of the public has no idea how to do that.
-
I asked that question because I knew the answer skuzzy. And you answered exactly how I expected. I'll maintain my oppinion on bias.
-
I had Vista on my work laptop - a new, pretty well speced machine for almost six months.
For five of those months, all was well and I actually liked it. Sure, there was a few apps that wouldn't work or required you to buy an upgrade, but they were the exception. Sure, some new interface elements - like networking - seemed counter-intuitive at first. Sure - file transfer speeds sucked like you wouldn't believe. But once I had switched off all the UAC cr@p, all seemed well. I was coming to view XP as old-fashioned by comparison. I was a believer.
Then it all went wrong. One day about a month ago, I booted the machine and it was running slow as hell. A quick look in Task Manager showed the NT System and Kernal process eating all available CPU. I rebooted and it seemed to correct itself. However over the next few weeks it became a frequent occurrence, requiring several reboots to correct. Initially, I wasn't worried. I'd do a bit of hunting about, see what I'd changed, check out Google, maybe even call Dell Support...(OK, I'm joking about the Dell Support :rofl). However, for the first time ever, I drew a blank on a computer problem. Sure there are a couple of threads out there on the problem, but no-one has an answer.
In the end, I did some hard thinking about what I need my work laptop for and as a result it is now running Ubuntu 8.04 64bit absolutely flawlessly. This does 95% of what I need and for that last 5% I've got an XP VMWare image.
My home PC is running XP still - despite initially liking Vista, I saw nothing in it that would compel me to go out and buy an upgrade. My home PC is predominately an entertainment tool - music, internet, video. Now, if it weren't for Aces High, I'd be seriously thinking about a Mac for next time around.
-
If you install XP and manufacturer drivers and the box won't work it's 99.9% faulty hardware.
If you install Vista and manufacturer drivers and the box won't work you can not know where to search the problem as the software breaks easyer than the hardware. That, my friends, is a definition of an IT nightmare.
Say no to Vista.
-
I asked that question because I knew the answer skuzzy. And you answered exactly how I expected. I'll maintain my oppinion on bias.
So, you were just trolling. I thought I would give you the benefit of the doubt. My mistake. Will not make that one again.
-
Why bother with Vista?
Simple, I have the hardware to run it with ease and want multi core and DX10 support now. Not wait in hope for the next OS release or stick with XP which doesn't support what I want today.
This thread is just like a new motorbike thread at advrider. New bike comes out only people that post are the ones complaining for what ever reason while the other 99% are out riding having a good time. Hence you end up with a disproportionate view of the new bike. If I read forums I'd probably never buy another new bike again and be trying to restore some old piece of 90's junk to make it as good as the new model. Not going to happen no matter how much you tweak the old ride and search ebay for parts.
Yes but I have my single core 1Gb ram PC that only windows XP can run then compared to system resource hogging Vista which doesn't support my 5 year old graphics card and some obscure USB device that was only sold at Walmart... Give me a break.
As i said from the very begining, if I was running a single core 1gb ram system then yes I would of kept XP. Running a new high end system I run Vista with FSX and enjoy multi core support, load up Crysis and it's DX10 which floors you with it's graphics and AI.
My point being, Hardware has developed past XP, It's cheaper and more over clockable then ever before, today with under a grand you can build a dual core 4Ghz,4Gb,8 series SLI rig with change for a 22" display that will scream through 3D Marks. Time to move on and think outside XP and Single Cores, unless of course your stuck with an old PC.
<S>...-Gixer
-
If you install XP and manufacturer drivers and the box won't work it's 99.9% faulty hardware.
If you install Vista and manufacturer drivers and the box won't work you can not know where to search the problem as the software breaks easyer than the hardware. That, my friends, is a definition of an IT nightmare.
Say no to Vista.
So what's your IT experience? Home PC's,desktop admin,server admin,network admin,MCSE,CCNE, system support,mainframes,EFT Switch? Mine is the last 3 and what you described is a long long way from being a "IT Nightmare".
<S>...-Gixer
-
Simple, I have the hardware to run it with ease and want multi core and DX10 support now. Not wait in hope for the next OS release or stick with XP which doesn't support what I want today.
XP Pro supports multi-core CPU's. Unfortunately, Vista inherited the same thread manager as XP has. They both duplicate the same exact problems in that area.
Yes, if you must have DX10, then you are indeed stuck with Vista.
This thread is just like a new motorbike thread at advrider. New bike comes out only people that post are the ones complaining for what ever reason while the other 99% are out riding having a good time. Hence you end up with a disproportionate view of the new bike. If I read forums I'd probably never buy another new bike again and be trying to restore some old piece of 90's junk to make it as good as the new model. Not going to happen no matter how much you tweak the old ride and search ebay for parts.
Yes but I have my single core 1Gb ram PC that only windows XP can run then compared to system resource hogging Vista which doesn't support my 5 year old graphics card and some obscure USB device that was only sold at Walmart... Give me a break.
I was not aware an Intel E6750 with 2GB of RAM and an NVidia 9800GTX was only available at Walmart and was already outdated. Yes, older hardware is not supported by Vista. Only an idiot would try to run Vista on a single core P4 with 1GB of RAM.
As i said from the very begining, if I was running a single core 1gb ram system then yes I would of kept XP. Running a new high end system I run Vista with FSX and enjoy multi core support, load up Crysis and it's DX10 which floors you with it's graphics and AI.
And yet those same games run under Windows XP just fine. Odd how you mention a game which is not doing well in the marketplace. The folks who developed Crysis have already said they are moving to consoles due to poor sales of thier product.
My point being, Hardware has developed past XP, It's cheaper and more over clockable then ever before, today with under a grand you can build a dual core 4Ghz,4Gb,8 series SLI rig with change for a 22" display that will scream through 3D Marks. Time to move on and think outside XP and Single Cores, unless of course your stuck with an old PC.
I have not found any hardware that does not have XP support. What hardware have you run into that does not have XP support? I have an Allendale CPU in my box which I have over-clocked to 3.2Ghz from 2.0Ghz. XP likes it just fine. XP Pro runs better on it than the previous installation of Vista Ultimate.
SLI support, yes, XP has it. Vista took the support from XP, as a matter of fact.
4GB of RAM? The 32bit version of Vista has the same exact limitations on memoiy that the 32 bit version of XP has. XP Pro has the edge due to its significantly smaller footprint, it actually has more useable memory space.
Multi-core support? WIndows XP Pro has multi-core support. Vista may have taken that from XP. Given the same exact bug with AMD dual-core CPU's appears in Vista and in XP Pro, it would not be a stretch to presume Vista's multi-core support came from XP as well.
In 3D Marks, Windows XP is still faster than Vista on the same hardware platform.
If you call that 'moving forward', then I understand why you prefer Vista. Glad you are happy with UAC. I prefer an operating system that actually does what I tell it to. I just want it to run my applications. Not question my every mouse-click. I do not define that as moving forward. However, that is very much a personal perspective and you are entitled to yours just as I am entitled to mine.
Overall the marketplace is speaking for itself as Vista sales are bordering on pathetic. Seems most people are not happy with it either. I can understand why.
EDIT: Just FYI. Multi-core support is also in Windows 2000, although it is limited to two cores only. Even so, it still has a better thread manager than XP Pro, or Vista has. Just because something is new, does not inherently make it better.
-
What are the specs of the machine your using for Vista? Over the history of MS OS the earlier versions have always been lighter footprint/faster.
Win 3.1x faster than Win9x
Win 9x faster than WinXP
WinXP faster than WinVista
However run Vista and XP with 4Gb Ram and I'd be surprised if even 3DMark can measure any difference, let alone visibly see any difference for the user. Plus I would bet a standard XP 64bit box would crash before Vista 64bit stress testing with Orthos and SuperPi.
As for Crysis, the game is excellent and runs perfectly, no idea on game sales figures. Unfortunately PC game sales overall have started dying off for a while compared to the latest generation consoles. Simply because of cheap consoles with great graphics flooding the market. And because PC gaming is now totally dominated by WoW and SIMs.
DX10 support, you might hate it now, but it will become mainstream just like DX9 before it and more people will move to Vista that reason.
As for having Vista question every time you click on something??? No idea what your experiencing there. Sounds a machine built by admin that decided to give your account guest rights. Never experienced anything like that.
Anyway these OS War threads are about as interesting as going to the dentist and the last im posting on the subject I just don't have the time for long threads and continue discussions, especially on something like this which has been beaten to death all over the net. Arguing against the forum mod I'm just banging my head against a wall.
As I've said I've been running Vista 64bit fine since release, and have found it to not only look better then XP, but is easier to manage,runs fast with 4Gb Ram,is more stable and haven't had a single driver, application etc related problem. Plus it's rock solid on a heavily overclocked CPU/RAM/GPU box running high voltages past spec that's hardly ever powered down.
Something that no matter how much tweaking I did, could never get to happen on any previous OS version builds including Win XP.
<S>...-Gixer
-
What are the specs of the machine your using for Vista?
The test box is an Intel E6300 with an ATI X1600XT video card in it and 1GB of RAM. Why 1GB? It is the default amount of RAM every OEM on the planet ships with Vista. We have to know what we are up against.
Over the history of MS OS the earlier versions have always been lighter footprint/faster.
Win 3.1x faster than Win9x
Win 9x faster than WinXP
WinXP faster than WinVista
Very true. However, look at why the extra overhead was added. There have been significant strides in areas such as memory management which have been desparately needed. Vista is probably the first operating system replacement Microsoft has shipped where they did nothing to improve that, but yet there is room for improvement.
However run Vista and XP with 4Gb Ram and I'd be surprised if even 3DMark can measure any difference, let alone visibly see any difference for the user. Plus I would bet a standard XP 64bit box would crash before Vista 64bit stress testing with Orthos and SuperPi.
You could be right. I have no desire to try and find the hardware which will work on either operating systems 64 bit versions. I know it is a crap shoot. And Vista could be much better than the 64 bit version of XP, but to have to deal with all the other problems with Vista makes it a moot point from my perspective.
As for Crysis, the game is excellent and runs perfectly, no idea on game sales figures. Unfortunately PC game sales overall have started dying off for a while compared to the latest generation consoles. Simply because of cheap consoles with great graphics flooding the market. And because PC gaming is now totally dominated by WoW and SIMs.
Crysis is a really nice looking piece of work. Part of the reason for its failure is most machines in the marketplace cannot effectively run it with full eye candy. That relegates the game to the 'high end gamer only' status.
DX10 support, you might hate it now, but it will become mainstream just like DX9 before it and more people will move to Vista that reason.
I never said I di dnot like DX10. I do not like the fact that Microsoft arbitrarily made DX10 available only under Vista. This only serves to slow the deployment of DX10 based games. With the poor sales of Vista, only a game coimpany funded by Microsoft would do a DX10 only game. There is just no market basis for anyone to do a DX10 only game. It will be a very long time before that is not true.
If Microsoft wanted all game companies to jump to DX10, they would have made DX10 available for XP as well. The DX10 pipeline is a better pipeline than DX9. It is just a shame Microsoft is shooting DX10 in the foot by making it exclusive to Vista.
As for having Vista question every time you click on something??? No idea what your experiencing there. Sounds a machine built by admin that decided to give your account guest rights. Never experienced anything like that.
Vista is installed just as it would be from any OEM. Every person who buys a Vista based OEM computer is not the admin for that computer. So they have to deal with UAC always wanting confirmation on most every action that changes something in Vista. It cannot be disabled without creating a lot of other problems with previously installed applications.
Anyway these OS War threads are about as interesting as going to the dentist and the last im posting on the subject I just don't have the time for long threads and continue discussions, especially on something like this which has been beaten to death all over the net. Arguing against the forum mod I'm just banging my head against a wall.
As I've said I've been running Vista 64bit fine since release, and have found it to not only look better then XP, but is easier to manage,runs fast with 4Gb Ram,is more stable and haven't had a single driver, application etc related problem. Plus it's rock solid on a heavily overclocked CPU/RAM/GPU box running high voltages past spec that's hardly ever powered down.
Something that no matter how much tweaking I did, could never get to happen on any previous OS version builds including Win XP.
I do not care for these discussions either, but I am not in a position where I can sit back and let people make blanket statements about how wonderful Vista is, when in fact, it is not. I have no doubt you think Vista is fine. I have no doubt you think Vista is better than XP. And for you, that is fine. However, for most people, Vista is a pain in the tush. The sales figures show that and the current buglist and discussions at Microsoft/MSDN also show it.
There are inconsistencies in Vista which always make these types of discussions difficult. Immature and problematic drivers do not help matters. What works in one configuration, fails miserably in another. I try to take that into account. There are design issues with Vista that costs us money everyday. If all the OEM's would simply disable UAC and Aero, it would make a difference.
-
<delted>
-
I recently bought a new computer, a quad core 64 bit Vista machine with 6 gigs of ram and a 1060(?) FSB. Other than an occasional freeze like I had with XP before the last patch, it runs AH fine.
I had to restore the system and I'm not sure what I did but there's only one log in account and I'm the administrator, no choosing required.
UAC is disabled and I'm not having any issues with that either. All my software & games seem to be happy :)
-
[hijack]
And yet those same games run under Windows XP just fine. Odd how you mention a game which is not doing well in the marketplace. The folks who developed Crysis have already said they are moving to consoles due to poor sales of thier product.
Actually, Crytek is not dropping PC game development in favor of console only. They will no longer be a PC exclusive developer/publisher. This isn't due to low sales of Crysis, it's actually done quite well in that area. They are moving away from PC exclusive games because of piracy. Some figures have indicated that there are more pirated copies of Crysis than retail sale copies. That's going to hurt any company, no matter how large and Crytek isn't the only one. Epic has announced that they are no longer going to produce or develop anymore PC titles due to piracy and THQ is thinking about doing the same.
[/hijack]
-
I have Crysis and at Ultra settings can't help but keep stopping just to enjoy the view. Simply amazing graphics, that and the AI and destructable scenery, awesome game.... :O
Yes bad pirates! Stealing all the software ;) That and that PC gaming is totally dominated by WoW and the Sims.
<S>...-Gixer
-
Gixer Vista=WinME so give it a rest already. W7 will be a total rewrite of the core and a fundamental change in the way MS structures the OS.
Are you sure? I read in some tec blog* that Windows 7 is going to just be Vista with a touch screen interface added?
(As a side note: who on Earth actually wants a touch screen interface? Does anyone really want to be staring at fingerprints on their monitor all day? POS kiosks and mobile, yes; but desktops with touch screens?)
* http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=11954
-
That is part of the story Ack-Ack. Crytek has publicly cried about the low sales of Crysis and blamed piracy for the low sales. I know a number people who happen to play Internet games and the majority of them all admit Crysis looks nice but by the time they turn down the eye candy to get to playable levels, it is just like anyother game in its genre.
They want to shift their focus to the console environment as they will be dealing with a known quantity in terms of what the hardware is always capable of. A game like Crysis really should have been brought to the console first. The PC market is simply too fragmented, in terms of hardware and software, to really be a good place for a game like Crysis.
A few years from now, the current release of Crysis will be a kick butt PC game. It is the price for being bleeding edge.
-
Skuzzy, Crysis already is a kick butt PC Game no need to wait for a few years. There is an excellent config mod on the Crysis mod website that effectively lets you play Crysis at Ultra visual levels but using High settings. So if you have a 2. something ghz CPU, 2Gb ram and a 8 series graphics card (all cheap average components today) you can effectively enjoy Crysis at Ultra visual levels with this excellent mod.
Now add a 3+ Ghz multi core CPU, 4gb ram and two 8 or 9 series graphics cards in SLA, you can run Ultra settings on a 24" display with or without the mod. I still run it with the mod and the game is very fluid and fast everywhere.
Having to wait years for hardware to catch up is incorrect imho, runs just great on gear that currently isn't even the latest and greatest. You can enjoy the eye candy and great gameplay. Have you actually played the game for more then a couple hours yourself or just going by general chat on blogs?
Building and overclocking PC's today has never been easier or cheaper. And you will be able to run everything and anything bar sims like FSX maxed out.
<S>...-Gixer
-
I have six computers at home Gixer. They range from 800Mhz P3's to the E8400 Intel Wolfdale. I can run the game at whatever level I like. They have video cards ranging from the ATI8500 to the NVidia 9800GTX.
However the overall marketplace is still generally at the 2.4Ghz Pentium 4 level with 512MB to 1GB of RAM of RAM with a fairly low level graphics card. A 6000 series NVidia card chokes on full detail in Crysis. A 7000 series video card stumbles a bit on high detail. A high end 8000/9000 series card runs the game pretty well.
Most people do not buy new computers every year. Most people tend to keep their computers for around 3 to 4 years. Thus in 3 to 4 years, the marketplace will have enough saturation of today's hardware to make games like Crysis really nice games to play at full detail levels.
While I personally think Crysis is a nice looking game with a broad collision system. I was not that impressed with the gameplay. It was okay. I have a number of friends who are more avid gamers than I am. I have a tendency to spend too much time looking at the mechanics of a game, rather than playing it, so I always talk to them about the games to see what they think.
I still think they would have been better off doing the game on the consoles first then bring it to the PC platform. The cost of supporting the PC platform is getting pretty high. Vista really drove support costs up and there is no reason to think those support costs are going to recede as Microsoft preps the next operating system.
I know you, like most people, are not in a position to understand that increase in support cost, but it is very real and very substantial. I see that cost increasing as we go forward. I am sure the folks a t Crytek see it also.