Originally posted by midwestnets

 

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 had no performance problems.  Zero.  My only problem with Vista is interoperability.  I have one customer that uses a version of Citrix Secure Access that does not work with Vista.   I have to VPN in using a Virtual PC running XP.  No big deal really, but it can make for some interesting work arounds.

 

 

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.

Agreed, that pretty much echos my experience. And I've already blacklisted the hardware companies that haven't kept up with drivers for Vista (over a year later, after betas and such). Good riddance HP printers!

Originally posted by T3hpwn

Originally posted by midwestnets

 

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 had no performance problems.  Zero.  My only problem with Vista is interoperability.  I have one customer that uses a version of Citrix Secure Access that does not work with Vista.   I have to VPN in using a Virtual PC running XP.  No big deal really, but it can make for some interesting work arounds.

 

 

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.

Agreed, that pretty much echos my experience. And I've already blacklisted the hardware companies that haven't kept up with drivers for Vista (over a year later, after betas and such). Good riddance HP printers!

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Vista can't run these programs, but in purchasing a budget system for my office HP decided that 1GB of RAM would suffice in running these programs. A MINIMUM of 2 GBs for vista, just for common programs is necessary.  For a Gaming rig 4 GB of RAM and a dual core is a must.

Now I'm not saying that Vista is worthless, but don't expect everyone to accept Vista with open arms. Personally I still prefer XP just on performance alone, (and thats on my gaming rig at home which could handle vista no problem.)  But again in a situation like this, a dual boot is ideal for sure.

Originally posted by maskedweasel

 

Originally posted by T3hpwn

Originally posted by midwestnets

 

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 had no performance problems.  Zero.  My only problem with Vista is interoperability.  I have one customer that uses a version of Citrix Secure Access that does not work with Vista.   I have to VPN in using a Virtual PC running XP.  No big deal really, but it can make for some interesting work arounds.

 

 

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.

Agreed, that pretty much echos my experience. And I've already blacklisted the hardware companies that haven't kept up with drivers for Vista (over a year later, after betas and such). Good riddance HP printers!

 

 

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Vista can't run these programs, but in purchasing a budget system for my office HP decided that 1GB of RAM would suffice in running these programs. A MINIMUM of 2 GBs for vista, just for common programs is necessary.  For a Gaming rig 4 GB of RAM and a dual core is a must.

Now I'm not saying that Vista is worthless, but don't expect everyone to accept Vista with open arms. Personally I still prefer XP just on performance alone, (and thats on my gaming rig at home which could handle vista no problem.)  But again in a situation like this, a dual boot is ideal for sure.

I understand the arguments against though.  I also understand the "hating."  Everyone jumped too fast for Vista.  It was a mistake for pc vendors to start making "standard users" switch early.    I tried to tell people to stay away awhile, but they got caught up in "deals" and got themselves a pc they couldn't use.  Now, those same people are MAD MAD MAD.  I also know one company that got caught up in a "toshiba" laptop deal.  They tried to buy the laptops with vista and then reverse upgrade to XP.  They didn't know that Toshiba hadn't created any XP drivers for the pcs.

Originally posted by midwestnets 

Crysis Beta is not out?    

The public BETA is not out, Crytek just announced a delay until next month.  As for the current BETA, since it is under NDA I assume anyone commenting publicly on it is either full of crap about having played or since they are breaking a legal agreement they made they are untrustworthy.  I have no doubt Cryis will deliver a valid DX10 experience, that much seems certain - the question is how many games will follow due to the issues of DX10 path being so different from consoles and the vast, vast, vast majority of PCs (less than 2% from surveys).

As for all the rest - I think the overwhelming evidence on Vista is that it is an inferior gaming platform.  Nobody can cite any factual real world testing that shows otherwise.  Additionally, it is questionable as to whether the improvements are worth the issues or even improvements at all.  Yes, it is shinier and prettier than XP but that has little to do with its capability as an OS and anyone who labels the whole of any software by the GUI alone is truly an idiot just as judging a car by the paint job alone is idiotic.  I liken those who say they have no problems as the same type of morons who exists with all software - I recall in the first few weeks of Vanguard that there was a very vocal group denying that the game had any issues - same thing here.  Those who cannot honestly admit Vista's issues are either to uninformed to be aware of them or just deniers (or shills from MS doing viral marketing).

I for one call things as I see them and Vista right now has allot of issues and is inferior to XP for gaming since DX10 offers NOTHING to date over DX9 (Crysis may change that but one game does not an OS justify).  I think there is enough information to question whether enough games will avail themselves of the advantages DX10 offers given the limited deployment and variance between DX10 and consoles making it very valid to question if it will ever come to full fruition.  While Vista will likely mature and have its rough edges polished off it has a long, long way to go to be seriously considered as a performance platform and some ways to go to be considered a good operating system as now it really is only fairly described as having the potential to be good but needing polish and fixes to get there.

Wow I think people are overreacting. IF you want to play the game in DX10 with SM4.0 or 5.0 you need vista. If you don't want vista or to spend another 200-500 on a new DX10 supported video card, you can play the game in DX9. I don't see what the big deal is, or why this thread has gone on for so long.

AOC will support more than just Vista and DX10. Hell they have some DX9 screeshots lying around the web.

Originally posted by mehoron

Wow I think people are overreacting. IF you want to play the game in DX10 with SM4.0 or 5.0 you need vista. If you don't want vista or to spend another 200-500 on a new DX10 supported video card, you can play the game in DX9. I don't see what the big deal is, or why this thread has gone on for so long.

AOC will support more than just Vista and DX10. Hell they have some DX9 screeshots lying around the web.

I agree.  I hate to be blunt, but please people stfu already about this.

Originally posted by AgtSmith

 

Originally posted by midwestnets 

Crysis Beta is not out?    

 

The public BETA is not out, Crytek just announced a delay until next month.  As for the current BETA, since it is under NDA I assume anyone commenting publicly on it is either full of crap about having played or since they are breaking a legal agreement they made they are untrustworthy. 

 

 

And again because of your assumptions, you'd be wrong  on both counts.  Rather than assume, check your facts. 

Originally posted by midwestnets

 

Originally posted by AgtSmith

 

Originally posted by midwestnets 

Crysis Beta is not out?    

 

The public BETA is not out, Crytek just announced a delay until next month.  As for the current BETA, since it is under NDA I assume anyone commenting publicly on it is either full of crap about having played or since they are breaking a legal agreement they made they are untrustworthy. 

 

 

 

And again because of your assumptions, you'd be wrong  on both counts.  Rather than assume, check your facts. 

How so?  The public BETA, or demo as it where, is not out and the BETA testing that is available is under NDA.  Even that link you posted says so in bold type: "This is a closed beta under NDA. You may not share any information related to the beta. Please refer to the beta NDA for further information.".

Originally posted by DeadJester

thats  great cause I wont run Vista tell they get it running right

I've been running Vista for months now and have had only one problem with it.  Bioshock, upon release, did not run properly.   ATI and Nvidea quickly put out hotfix drivers that fixed the issue and now the complete video drivers are out and the game runs great.  I don't understand what all the fuss is about Vista which costs about $70 not $300.  or $150 for Vista Ultimate.

Well if your just playing games on your PC and basic use overall, I doubt that 5% to 10% deficit really counts. I mean come on if playing games you get above 60fps in vista including that 10% deficiency that we so called get whats the problem?

Oh thats right if you do anything else with your PC.

Originally posted by midwestnets

 

Originally posted by AgtSmith

 

Originally posted by midwestnets 

Crysis Beta is not out?    

 

The public BETA is not out, Crytek just announced a delay until next month.  As for the current BETA, since it is under NDA I assume anyone commenting publicly on it is either full of crap about having played or since they are breaking a legal agreement they made they are untrustworthy. 

 

 

 

And again because of your assumptions, you'd be wrong  on both counts.  Rather than assume, check your facts. 

Agreed.     ALSO

Just because somebody says, Vista offers NOTHING to make it a valid gaming platform doesn't make it true.   Nividia, and ATI/AMD  would disagree, as would Intel.   They're all working on DX10.   Why would everyone thats anything involved in graphics be investing into this if it wasn't REALLY worth having?   This isn't like Nvidia's CRAZY idea, they called SLI ages ago,  where otheres critized it, and then years later adopted its own version.   EVERYONES employing DX10 in new hardware.  

Originally posted by AgtSmith

 

Originally posted by midwestnets

 

Originally posted by AgtSmith

 

Originally posted by midwestnets 

Crysis Beta is not out?    

 

The public BETA is not out, Crytek just announced a delay until next month.  As for the current BETA, since it is under NDA I assume anyone commenting publicly on it is either full of crap about having played or since they are breaking a legal agreement they made they are untrustworthy. 

 

 

 

And again because of your assumptions, you'd be wrong  on both counts.  Rather than assume, check your facts. 

 

How so?  The public BETA, or demo as it where, is not out and the BETA testing that is available is under NDA.  Even that link you posted says so in bold type: "This is a closed beta under NDA. You may not share any information related to the beta. Please refer to the beta NDA for further information.".

 

 

 

But lets say for S&G it is a violation.

HEY POT! This is Kettle!  YOU ARE BLACK! 

It is comepletely and utterly hipocritical for someone with your  avatar (using copyrighted material) to even suggest impropriety in someone else.  You are a poster that twists and schemes everything so that you can be RIGHT.  I don't mean you try "to get to the right answer." I mean you try to avoid seeming wrong.  You would make a great lawyer, but you are an untrustworthy poster.

Nice try. Your serve!

Google 'fair use' moron.  ROFL.

Originally posted by FE|Tachyon

 

Just because somebody says, Vista offers NOTHING to make it a valid gaming platform doesn't make it true.   Nividia, and ATI/AMD  would disagree, as would Intel.   They're all working on DX10.   Why would everyone thats anything involved in graphics be investing into this if it wasn't REALLY worth having?   This isn't like Nvidia's CRAZY idea, they called SLI ages ago,  where otheres critized it, and then years later adopted its own version.   EVERYONES employing DX10 in new hardware.  

All those companies have a financial incentive to hype Vista/DX10 - it is how they justify selling upgrades. 

Another article appeared just today talking about thefailure of Vista to really appeal to anyone.  You can deny reality all you want but you are simply making a fool of yourself to sit here and claim over and over that Vista is not seriously problematic and largely considered unnecessary.  Vista is not selling well for a reason, and it isn't that people do not like change as historically sales surge when a new Windows comes out, Vista has caused them to stall.  Just as the Linux geeks are wrong when they claim that windows is only popular because it comes pre-installed on most PCs you are wrong to ignore the reluctance of consumers in shying away from Vista.  Believe it or not the market is a good judge of product quality and just as the market reject Millennium it is rejecting Vista. 

Vista may not be the total and utter failure that Millennium was but it isn't far off in a practical sense.  As I quoted from MS themselves just a week or so ago - Vista has managed only to penetrate the windows install base (not the larger PC install base) to the tune of about 6%.  This is not a substantial enough penetration to warrant the kind of development attention that will be required to fully realize DX10 - not even close.  Perhaps one or two games will buck trends but with consoles being locked down to DX9 and the real DX10 gaming market being so absolutely minuscule don't hold your breath.

Go on in this thread, and elsewhere, blabbering about how Vista has worked for you without problem and how it is this and that.  Anyone with a brain can read and observe and find out for themselves the reality of the situation and see the foolishness of your mindless dribble.

Originally posted by AgtSmith

Google 'fair use' moron.  ROFL.

 

Originally posted by FE|Tachyon

 

Just because somebody says, Vista offers NOTHING to make it a valid gaming platform doesn't make it true.   Nividia, and ATI/AMD  would disagree, as would Intel.   They're all working on DX10.   Why would everyone thats anything involved in graphics be investing into this if it wasn't REALLY worth having?   This isn't like Nvidia's CRAZY idea, they called SLI ages ago,  where otheres critized it, and then years later adopted its own version.   EVERYONES employing DX10 in new hardware.  

 

All those companies have a financial incentive to hype Vista/DX10 - it is how they justify selling upgrades. 

 

Another article appeared just today talking about thefailure of Vista to really appeal to anyone.  You can deny reality all you want but you are simply making a fool of yourself to sit here and claim over and over that Vista is not seriously problematic and largely considered unnecessary.  Vista is not selling well for a reason, and it isn't that people do not like change as historically sales surge when a new Windows comes out, Vista has caused them to stall.  Just as the Linux geeks are wrong when they claim that windows is only popular because it comes pre-installed on most PCs you are wrong to ignore the reluctance of consumers in shying away from Vista.  Believe it or not the market is a good judge of product quality and just as the market reject Millennium it is rejecting Vista. 

 

Vista may not be the total and utter failure that Millennium was but it isn't far off in a practical sense.  As I quoted from MS themselves just a week or so ago - Vista has managed only to penetrate the windows install base (not the larger PC install base) to the tune of about 6%.  This is not a substantial enough penetration to warrant the kind of development attention that will be required to fully realize DX10 - not even close.  Perhaps one or two games will buck trends but with consoles being locked down to DX9 and the real DX10 gaming market being so absolutely minuscule don't hold your breath.

 

Go on in this thread, and elsewhere, blabbering about how Vista has worked for you without problem and how it is this and that.  Anyone with a brain can read and observe and find out for themselves the reality of the situation and see the foolishness of your mindless dribble.

 

Well Lucky for us, We can disagree.  The fact that theres a great many people gaming on Vista, and some have voiced their oppinions here.  You might not like Vista, but those who use it, almost all disagree.  Odd how the ones that don't use it, and probably haven't tried it, are the ones who say its no good.   I can promiss you that some of the people saying Vista sucks, don't even have a copy.  Isn't that right?

Originally posted by AgtSmith

Google 'fair use' moron.  ROFL.

  

So apparently you believe this site is only seen IN THE UNITED STATES.

30- Love

Your serve again.

I've been under the impression that with my 7950 gx2 I can not use dx10, is this true or false? If it is true, I fail to see how upgrading to vista helps me in any way.

Originally posted by Sarge994

I've been under the impression that with my 7950 gx2 I can not use dx10, is this true or false? If it is true, I fail to see how upgrading to vista helps me in any way.

I do not believe Your card supports DX10.   The tech specs only list DX9.  I haven't looked recently, but last time I did the only card that supported it from Nvidia was the 8800.

Originally posted by midwestnets

 

Originally posted by Sarge994

I've been under the impression that with my 7950 gx2 I can not use dx10, is this true or false? If it is true, I fail to see how upgrading to vista helps me in any way.

I do not believe Your card supports DX10.   The tech specs only list DX9.  I haven't looked recently, but last time I did the only card that supported it from Nvidia was the 8800.

 

 

And ATI/AMD 2400, 2600 and 2900 series =)

Originally posted by AmazingAvery

Originally posted by midwestnets

 

Originally posted by Sarge994

I've been under the impression that with my 7950 gx2 I can not use dx10, is this true or false? If it is true, I fail to see how upgrading to vista helps me in any way.

I do not believe Your card supports DX10.   The tech specs only list DX9.  I haven't looked recently, but last time I did the only card that supported it from Nvidia was the 8800.

 

 

And ATI/AMD 2400, 2600 and 2900 series =)

keep in mind for ATI thats the HD series. and also the 8600 with nvidia. But as with the ATI HD 2400 and the Nvidia 8600, i would not recommend getting, due to the fact they actually go down in speed them higher DX9 cards, but run DX 10.

Nvidia it's all 8 series cards. 8xxx will have Direct X10. 

I'm not an ATI buff, but will prolly look into ATI more now that AMD owns them.