AH and vista 64bit

[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

[Skuzzy]

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I was not aware an Intel E6750 with 2GB of RAM and an NVidia 9800GTX was only available at Walmart and was already outdated.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.

[Gixer]

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

[Skuzzy]

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.

[Mini D]

<delted>

[Alky]

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

[Ack-Ack]

[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]

[Gixer]

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.... 

Yes bad pirates! Stealing all the software That and that PC gaming is totally dominated by WoW and the Sims.


<S>...-Gixer

[715]

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

[Skuzzy]

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.

[Gixer]

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

[Skuzzy]

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.