You said a couple thing that need commenting so let me try breaking it up...

Originally posted by AmazingAvery

98% of everything I've read in relation to Dx10 in he last 2 months say that it has come around now, or about to.

DX10 hasn't changed at all - it is not in question.  The economics of developing for it (really developing for it and not just making a DX9 game have a few DX10 elements) with its small install base and the fact that any work done creating DX10 rendering paths is lost in the important console market is in question. 

Originally posted by AmazingAvery

I would argue the general consensus is that Vista's installation base is already there, game titles aren't.  Xp will be cut off from being bundled with PC's from the end of the year anyway. Hasn't Vista sold more than XP did in its first quarter? so to compare it to the whole Windows Pie Share is a bit drastic.

This couldn't be more wrong.  Even MS says that Vista at this point is only at about 6% of the windows install market, the real number is quite a bit lower.  And of that real number the percent that are capable of gaming is minuscule - according to the most thorough hardware survey (Valve) DX10 gaming hardware represents less than 2% of the market.  Let me back up a bit, the 'real' number of Vista install verses the number MS claims.  A big, big chunk of Vista sales are OEM machines sold to enterprises - which promptly wipe it and install XP because they are volume license partners who can install whatever they want.  So whatever number MS touts is seriously inflated because it represents only what was on the thing when it left Dell or HP or whatever and not what is on it when in service.  Additionally, the comparison to XP sales is flawed in a number of ways.  For one, when XP sold (through its entire life cycle) MS amitorized the license sale throughout the year but this year they made a change to count the whole sale in the quarter it was sold.  In the end it is not a big differance except when comparing the two in thier first month or quarter(s) as XP sales where spread out over the year while Vista dollars all lump in the beginning.  Lastly, the number is further skewed by the fact that MS counted a number of PCs sold in late 2006 with XP on them as Vista sales, remember the ones with the no cost upgrade to Vista coupons and discount upgrades - those got counted, in whole or part depending on the type, as a Vista sale.  In addition to all this, the PC market is far, far, far larger today than it was when XP was released so just to stay even with XP sales if all the above where not being done Vista would have to far outsell it just to be 'even' and as it stands even with the inflated figures it is just on par in raw dollars (not counting for inflation and Vista's higher price).

Originally posted by AmazingAvery

Anyway I think things will be better sooner than you think Agt Smith

Perhaps, but without a MAJOR increase in the rate of sale (and I mean MAJOR) there just isn't going to be enough DX10 gaming rigs deployed to be able to justify developers making a complete DX10 game unless they are inclined to code one game twice and sell it once - and knowing the economics of developing games I think we all know how unlikely that is.  Add in the resurgent OpenGL API (Google ID Tech 5) and there is momentum to ignore DX10, or at least give it the 'window dressing' type treatment that something like Creative's xFi RAM gets or Ageia PhysX).  Just like those technologies the issue isn't their capability it is their acceptance and deployment amongst gamers -  neither have enough of a base to get anything but minor attention just as DX10 is getting.

Oh yeah - retail XP is EOL (end of lifecycle) as of January 2008 but for us system builders it is January 2009 so it isn't going anywhere anytime soon.  Additionally, I bet you will see MS extend that as they will lose tons of cash if they try to cut off their XP nose to spite their Vista face.  Also, even with the retail XP set to go away in January enterprise partners can still use it and signs are that in that market Vista has zero chance of gaining a notable market share for a long time to come, if ever.

Originally posted by AgtSmith

Additionally, I bet you will see MS extend that as they will lose tons of cash if they try to cut off their XP nose to spite their Vista face.

 

That asked. It does seems MS is under some heavy fire at the moment and some real pressure.

DX10 for XP?  Hard to say really.  It might be an indicator this January when XP is set to expire for the retail/OEM (not system builder) channel - an liberal extension of that deadline might signal that MS gets it, if they do not then they are clueless and plan to stick with this figuring it is good enough to get them to Windows 7 in 2k9.  Allot also depends on Vista SP1 - business are not even considering Vista without that SP and it seems it will not be public until the big spring launch day around Feb of 2008 when VS 2008, Server 2008, and some others launch (at least as a paper launch).  With Crysis being the best reason for Vista/DX10 it could be a double edged sword this fall - the game looks to really use DX10 in a meaningful way but Vista's un-patched performance issue are likely to mean that there will be trouble with performance in a game like Crysis, as there are with others.

So, do I think MS will allow DX10 on XP - honestly, no.  It really is the only big change from XP to Vista and I don't see them letting go of that because then vista really is just a 'tweaked' XP with compatibility and performance nad interoperability issues as well.  At lease DX10 gives them some future promise to hold out there.  MS has been very foggy about 2008 - so anything could happen - and alot of this depends on how good Windows 7 is shaping up to be.  Allot of insiders believe Windows 7 (Vienna, 2009) is the 'real' XP replacement and that Vista is out just because they had to ship something (anyone recall Millennium?).

And as far as MS being under pressure - not really.  The OEMs are the ones getting screwed over this because PC sales are crap - no rush to get the great new OS and even a drag with people dreading getting it.  MS is still selling XP to make up for slumping Vista.  Linux is not ready to take Window's place, across the landscape and Apple is just as arrogant and proprietary as ever so no challenge from them aside from a slight surge in laptops sales.  In the end it remains MS with XP verses MS with Vista - a win-win for MS until they get the real next Windows out in 2009, Windows 7.

I don't know where Smith gets his information.  I cannot find anything even remotely NEW that says Vista is at 6% market penetration, that isn't dated atleast 6 months ago.  

Vista is getting better,  not because the OS is changing, but hardware makers are off their butts making it more compatable.  And they're doing this, not because they think Vista is going to flop, but because they know it will be the next STEP forward in Windows OS.

The OS is Solid,  Stable, and Secure,  and includes DX10,  slightly more visualy appealing ( HEY,  Mac makes a living off this ONE reason)  It's easier to navigate,  and easier to set up.

I don't see how people can give it anything less then a NOD,  unless they're trapped on a machine with 512mb's of RAM. 

"  VISTA HAS LOWER PROFORMANCE!!!  "   Guess what?  So did XP!!!,  So did EVERY new OS compaired to the last,  but you GAIN more features, ease of use.   You wan't Air conditioning?  Your going to give up some horsepower.   Now this may not be a big deal if you drive a Corvette,  but you Focus drivers might be concerned.      ----- SAME THING HERE.

If somebody asks me to build them a PC,  and they're not seasoned professionals,  I'd use Vista.    it will make it easier to ue for them, and if they use it, then they are happy.  

ok i dont know about you, but i wouldnt call Vista easier to navigate if anything i find it more difficult cause im set in my XP ways. The OS is getting better i will admit, but many of the new security function iv turned off , hence defeating the purpose but keeping my sanity. Biggest thing i hated was this run as administrator crap. Say like when playing BF 2142 it wont let me play online cause punkbuster is another program.

I duno vista is getting there, and im about to install it on my main PC soon, but on the side note, i want Omega Drivers for Vista before i install it. Vista just seems to be a 300$ service pack 3 for XP and have security functions in the end i turned off due to them being most annoying.

Originally posted by FE|Tachyon

I don't know where Smith gets his information.  I cannot find anything even remotely NEW that says Vista is at 6% market penetration, that isn't dated atleast 6 months ago.  

Vista is getting better,  not because the OS is changing, but hardware makers are off their butts making it more compatable.  And they're doing this, not because they think Vista is going to flop, but because they know it will be the next STEP forward in Windows OS.

The OS is Solid,  Stable, and Secure,  and includes DX10,  slightly more visualy appealing ( HEY,  Mac makes a living off this ONE reason)  It's easier to navigate,  and easier to set up.

I don't see how people can give it anything less then a NOD,  unless they're trapped on a machine with 512mb's of RAM. 

"  VISTA HAS LOWER PROFORMANCE!!!  "   Guess what?  So did XP!!!,  So did EVERY new OS compaired to the last,  but you GAIN more features, ease of use.   You wan't Air conditioning?  Your going to give up some horsepower.   Now this may not be a big deal if you drive a Corvette,  but you Focus drivers might be concerned.      ----- SAME THING HERE.

Thats like saying you are going to buy a new Car with no doors because its newer then your old working care with doors. 

Look VISTA is going to be the future OS for Windows but it needs more time, alot more time, Once they fix everything that is wrong with it, it will be great, it is a decend system just not worth the money or the hassel at this time.

rule of thumb with OS's and microsoft, wait a year, i believe Vista has its first SP the end of this year.

When I build/rebuild a machine I install XP SP2 :)

Vista just gets me too many *huhs?* to be bothered with anymore.

Vista has problems with just about everything right now. Not to mention to run a game on vista you have to have a machine that can handle both vista AND the game. Not an overly big deal if you have a really expensive gaming rig, but for some poor shlub who's just barely hanging on with his 1 GB of ram and 2.6 ghz processor it's going to tax him just a little too much.  All in all a dual boot system would be the best, mainly because most every other game runs incredibly on an XP system just because of system resources alone. 

One good way to look at it though is, hey, it's technology and it keeps changing, if you don't upgrade now you'll have to upgrade sometime.  On the other hand, making everyone get a DX10 ready card and Vista sure is a bitch.

Originally posted by AgtSmith

 

You can spin and twist things all you want but the statement above, what I called BS on, is clearly suggesting the key to making Vista flawless is using at least 4Gs of RAM - an impossibility as I have outlined (without going to x64 which is not a pleasant environment now for games).

I need you to explain this.  I run Vista x64 right now.  I have not run many games (being busy) but I have run  a good slew of betas, and LORTO, EQ2, and Vanguard.   They have all run near flawless on my PC.  (well except vanguard and it don't run any worse than it did on XP)  I even tried the recent Crysis beta to see what DX 10 looked like. (pretty flashy btw) 

No problems on Vista x64.

So I need you to explain that statement.

Just want to add that Funcom have said AoC will be supports for 64 bit version.

And M$ does What What!

Originally posted by midwestnets

 

Originally posted by AgtSmith

 

 

 

You can spin and twist things all you want but the statement above, what I called BS on, is clearly suggesting the key to making Vista flawless is using at least 4Gs of RAM - an impossibility as I have outlined (without going to x64 which is not a pleasant environment now for games).

 

 

I need you to explain this.  I run Vista x64 right now.  I have not run many games (being busy) but I have run  a good slew of betas, and LORTO, EQ2, and Vanguard.   They have all run near flawless on my PC.  (well except vanguard and it don't run any worse than it did on XP)  I even tried the recent Crysis beta to see what DX 10 looked like. (pretty flashy btw) 

No problems on Vista x64.

So I need you to explain that statement.

 

Easy - it is impossible to have 4G of RAM in a 32bit operating system as the max address space is 4G (2^32) and half of that is typically reserved for hardware.  The poster could have been referring to x64 but the issue with x64 and performance applications are even more stark so the 'flawless' remark is clearly specious.  I won't tell you that you are not having issues, but I will tell you that there is no chance in hell that a game runs in Vista (x64 or x86) as good as it does in XP - every bit of data out to date shows otherwise.  perhaps you don't notice or don't mind the issues but when MS is even acknowledging them and even publicly states an expected 5% to 10% performance drop in games and other performance applications it is fair to call it a fact.  And as the Crysis BETA is not out, and won't be out until next month so I don't see how you have tried it.

Originally posted by FE|Tachyon

I don't know where Smith gets his information.  I cannot find anything even remotely NEW that says Vista is at 6% market penetration, that isn't dated at least 6 months ago.

I posted an interview from 9/13/2007 earlier in this thread with MS's chief technology officer saying, his words, that Vista was 6% of the Windows install base (not even the whole market).  that was a recent article and since it was referring to a chunk of the smaller pie in the Windows market and not the entire PC market it seems pretty accurate to still quote it.

Originally posted by FE|Tachyon

The OS is Solid,  Stable, and Secure,  and includes DX10,  slightly more visualy appealing ( HEY,  Mac makes a living off this ONE reason)  It's easier to navigate,  and easier to set up.

 

"  VISTA HAS LOWER PROFORMANCE!!!  "   Guess what?  So did XP!!!,  So did EVERY new OS compaired to the last,  but you GAIN more features, ease of use.   You wan't Air conditioning?  Your going to give up some horsepower.   Now this may not be a big deal if you drive a Corvette,  but you Focus drivers might be concerned.      ----- SAME THING HERE.

But it is arguably not more solid, secure, and stable than XP - so it is a regression in most ways and offers little to no improvements that are of enough importance to outweigh those regressions.  Again, that is the issue - not that Vista sucks just that for its issues (and there are issues, ignoring that is foolishness) there are not enough new things of large enough value. 

Win 9x to XP was a world of differance in capability - entirely new functionalities across all areas of the platform, yes it took more resources but it gave something much more back for what it took.  Vista takes but gives little back - most of it's improvements are little more than subtle and superficial improvements and its issues can be dead ending.  Consider a TV - Win 9x to XP was like going from a black and white CRT to a nice color LCD.  XO offered generationally new technologies and capabilities.  vbista does no such thing, it is just a tweaked up version of XP when you get right down to it.  NOTHING in Vista is un-doable in XP.  It may take a third party app in XP but even with the third party stuff you don't lose the performance and compatibility stuff you do in XP and with the cost of Vista it would probably be cheaper as well.

Everythings argueable to you Smith.   You say that X64 doesn't work well,  but more and more people post about their great experiences with it.   I've yet to find anyone thats tried it, and didn't stick with it.  Besides you???   People cry about compatability problems...  1.  Thats not MS's fault.  Get hardware thats been updated.  Don't buy junk.  Anyone that builds a PC, should look at compatability lists.  Some memory doesn't work with some Motherboards.  If your not willing to consider these other technical issues, you really shouldn't be posting an oppinion on things.  Who spends 2 grand and doesn't check compatability lists?  A fool.   2.  Most of the people who say Vista isn't compatabile haven't even tried it yet,  or if they had, they did befor their hardware was updated.  Again, not MS's Fault.     I don't understand Damning an entire OS, because of the same problems EVERY OTHER OS has when its released. 

For me, Vista X64 is the IDEAL OS for AoC,  if Funcom does actualy work to support it.   I can't blame Vista for Funcoms Mistake.   I want to take advantage of new technology,   I want richer fuller graphics.  A sparkley blue mass doesn't pass for water anymore.  Its a matter of priority.   If I was stuck with a Single Core x86, Crappy GFXcard, and 1 gig of ram,  maybe  I wouldn't look at Vista,  but   why?

A quad core with a 8800GTS 2gigs of ram can be Built for little over 1000 USD.    A SOLID system that will work for Vista x64. 

The question is,  Why do people still make stupid choices?   Because of skeptics like you.    If people knew the reality of it, they wouldn't bother with XP32.    Uneducated people,  often look for Skeptics, and they'll find them.  Look at the best hardware on newegg.  You'll find reviews saying its the crappiest junk they've ever bought.    You'll always find SKEPTICS!!!   All it takes is 1 person not doing their research, and building a machine with 2 pieces that are KNOWN to have conficts, and all the sudden  you've got a disaster.

The sad truth of the matter is, that people are ultimately like lemmings.   They'll follow the masses.   Those who do not, are often labled Genius, or Idiot.   The only thing that separates them, is  the Genius knows where hes going, and has prepaired for it,  the idiot has not.   When you build your next machine, ask yourself this...  Is my time worth doing a little reasearch and build a machine others have made work flawlessly, and gotten great proformance, and utilized the newest technology,  or   take the safe road,  follow the masses,  because you don't need to be educated to follow in the footsteps of others.

Originally posted by AgtSmith

 

Originally posted by midwestnets

 

 

 

  I even tried the recent Crysis beta to see what DX 10 looked like. (pretty flashy btw) 

 

 

 perhaps you don't notice or don't mind the issues but when MS is even acknowledging them and even publicly states an expected 5% to 10% performance drop in games and other performance applications it is fair to call it a fact.  And as the Crysis BETA is not out, and won't be out until next month so I don't see how you have tried it.

 

Crysis Beta is not out?    

http://www.fileplanet.com/promotions/crysis/beta/

Now I know you are just an Idiot with an AXE to grind.  Just shut up..

Crysis didn't really impress me to be truthful, regardless, fact of the matter is, Vista really, right now, is a piece of crap.  I wish it weren't so, I bought the freaking business version for my PC at the office.  Even running basic programs, outlook, word, internet, you need a minimum of 2 gigs for it to even act like running 512 MB on XP.  Now all in all it doesn't matter too much now, I mean you can get 2 gigs nowadays for roughly around the price as you could have gotten 512 MB not too long after XP came out.  Even still, it really sucks to sap performance on a game that could truly be amazing.

Crysis is freaking beautiful on my system with the graphics cranked (or at medium for that matter). It's has the best looking environment I've seen in an FPS. And BTW, I heard Crysis doesn't even support DX10 yet ... they said that will be in for release.

I love Vista too, it has so many nice little features that I've always wanted Windows to have like the option to continue a copy of many files even if one fails. I also run x64 and love that too, if for no other reason than I can have a ton more RAM. I'm running 4GB right now and would be fairly baffled by anyone who wants to play PC games who thinks that 2GB minimum is crazy. I had 2GB of RAM in 2000... A friend of mine just bought a quad core Intel machine for $1200 (with tax) that runs Vista and all current games amazingly. If you can't afford $1000-$1500 every two years, you really might want to look at console gaming.

Go, go DX10 and Vista! lol

Originally posted by maskedweasel

Crysis didn't really impress me to be truthful, regardless, fact of the matter is, Vista really, right now, is a piece of crap.  I wish it weren't so, I bought the freaking business version for my PC at the office.  Even running basic programs, outlook, word, internet, you need a minimum of 2 gigs for it to even act like running 512 MB on XP.  Now all in all it doesn't matter too much now, I mean you can get 2 gigs nowadays for roughly around the price as you could have gotten 512 MB not too long after XP came out.  Even still, it really sucks to sap performance on a game that could truly be amazing.

I have only had problems with old programs.  it's annoying that the application developers can't keep up, but not the end of the world.

Vista is evil junk and XP has been proven to be a much more stable OS for gaming... however, just because Vista currently comes with DX10 doesn't mean you won't be able to get a new video card which will support DX10 games.  There really aren't THAT many DX10 games right now but DX10 supporting video cards will be there so...

Either way I'd say Conan is one of the best looking upcoming mmo's, even without DX10