All Posts by Jetrpg

Ok, i am dropping this one here of course i had like another 2 pages typed but , its not worth it. ALL i can say it look up the facts people.

Hdnine yeah you can have two hdds each bootable (you can select which one to boot in the bios sata1 will most often take over [well master ide if your old one has that]). Or you can clear your current or new harddrive and partition it for two os on one harddrive.

Or just pop your old harddrive into your new computer.

But really the difference between vista and xp is not large enough for me to do this , other than if my computer couldn't run a newer game then id just stick with xp all the way.

But i know a lot of people that have dual boots.

No matter what just do what you want to , want to try out the new OS do it. Just looking for preforemce , don't. It will not matter in the end , and when i built my new system this WAS THE HARD DECISION I HAD TO MAKE. So good luck.

Originally posted by Enforcer71

 

Originally posted by gamedever

Here ya go for those who want the hack!

 

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2222414,00.asp

Fixed the link for ya.

 

I think the big question comes down to money to spend, if I was to go Vista I would definately have to go the 64bit, otherwise to me its a waste, then add on top of that more coin for the extra memory.

I am sticking with xp and dx9 until I see more games using dx10, once I see that happening then I will consider the upgrade.

Still its not DX10 at all it just allows you to access the highest settings. Nothing to do with dx10. Other than runnign dx10 would allow you to access those settings also.

Originally posted by elvenangel

 

Team Fotress 2 my ass...there's NO customization in a frakking FPS game and frankly this post alone Wickersham atleast to ME shows how little you pay attention to what people say unless they're kissing your buttocks and agreeing with you (i'd rather shoot you in the buttocks).

Mine too , honestly , TFC was much better.  custom maps with like the special builds were the coolest ever , best fps mod/game behind firearms.

Originally posted by elvenangel

Yea they said that long before they had any idea 600,000 players would sign up..and back when there were only what a couple hundred of us signed up for the newsletter.  It would of been nice but I didn't hold my breath since EQ2 promised that to EQ1 active account players too and it never happened due to the sheer amount of people signing up (though no where near this scale).

Not really they said "currently" . ie people signed up at that time. There is no reason not to follow this as well they KNEW  how many people were signed up at that time (60k some i believe , maybe 90).

But i understand , that was a logn time ago, so they don't have to live up to their promises :) . . . . Pretty much.

Whatever DAS,  if your not going to admit you were wrong with your orginal reply to me fine don't.  If your not going to admit that your statements about xp and vista preformence were wrong, fine don't. If you like vista more fine , i stated that vista is fine , it just doesn't out preform XP for games and costs more. I even thought about buy Vista, i don't hate it, but i see no reason for it. The title of this thread is " 

Upgrading to Vista and DX10 - is it worth the hassle?"

I say no for those pratical reasons , you say yes because you feel like you like it. Whatever. But im not gonna sit back and let you spin the facts, or distort the truth because it suits you.

First off you confronted my statistical statements to discredit my post. I Proved them to be more than right. Then you diminish those statistics using rationalization and misdirection. I call you out on it.

Then you switch your tone to that as if i started this issue up, i only backed up my statements with facts. Whereas,  you simple opped out of a losing battle did damage control and stated , "My point of argument wasn't that Vista was better in gaming.  It was that I like it better as whole, as an OS."

Yes you did challege that fact that xp was better than vista (deception). And how is vista better? I already told you you can no compare xp on an old comp to vista on a new (unless their specs are similar, which we know they are not). So those statements hold no barring. Furthermore, you state that your d/l speeds have double, which tells all of us who do know computers that the state of your previous computer was very sad to the poitn were the cpu/ memory/hdd could not ultize enough system resources to d/l at correct speeds. Thus totaly invaliding your entire critical opinion of vista vs XP , after not realizing this fact. IE you lack basic knowledge of computer systems or you mistyped.

I never engaged you in the battle of opinions, YOU ARE THE ONE WHO SAID BACK UP MY FACTS. Now that i have totally defeated you with facts you pull out the , oh facts don't matter card" BS BS BS.

I ask you then, how do you say "It was that I like it better as whole, as an OS" ? For what reasons do you say this?

Ok having said that , i will once again say Vista is a fine OS, just not as good at gaming as xp.

However, if into encoding vista is better. (8 gb ram ftw with encoding).

Its really not about you its about others reading i like to correctly inform people.

"My rig can run DX10 max settings of Crysis on XP" god i am an ass , you can't run dx10 on xp.

Originally posted by Netzoko

This is an honest question, I would like to know what is wrong with this game that makes many hate it?

P0rn, Im sure . its p0rns fault.

Coralis yeah that fake blizz rep can't read , hehe.

Originally posted by golembane

Both DAoC subscribers and Veteran Newsletter subscribers  had heightened chances of being accepted, but it was only a greater chance, not completely 100% needed or promised.

HAH look up the video where mythic reps josh i believe says EVERYONE CURRENTLY SIGNED UP FOR THE NEWSLETTER WILL GET INTO BETA.

Mythics not going to honor this but it was said about 3 years ago.

I no longer get the newsletter (it happened to me twice before) but can still log into the beta center.

Originally posted by DAS1337

 

You're showing me a bunch of benchmarks that have fairly insignificant comparisons.  Oh wow, I can run this at 200 FPS in XP and 188FPS in Vista.  You do know that the human eye can only see so much, so as long as you can run your game over 40 FPS, you won't notice a whole hell of a lot of difference between that and 200.  That's fine, those links prove that XP is slightly better when it comes to games.  I still prefer Vista.  I get faster download/upload speeds, Vista loads faster, I can browse my files much easier.  I have no problems with hardware or software and all my games run at max, with over 50 FPS.  I'm not even running dual GPU's either.  I can also run 8gigs of RAM with Vista 64 bit. 

 

 

5-10 FPS at 150 frames doesn't tell the whole story.  If you scale it down to a much higher resolution, it could be a difference between 2-3 FPS.  Which in my opinion, isn't really a big deal.  If I have to OC to make up for it, so be it.  I mean, my CPU runs at 30-33C and my GPU runs at 40-42C.  Woopdy.

Well , thast the point right now you say vista is better and ps if you look its more than 5-10 fps . (unless you look at super high rez)

and the 8 gb ram does nothing for you vrse 3 gb in xp (as xp runs games better with 3 than vista with 8).

If you like vista .. just because you like it, fine. But don't say go vista for any other reason that you simply like it. Like mac users talkign about game perforemce (macs are the worst os for gaming , linux with less support beats it over  and over again and windows is the best in 90% of benches i have seen).

But if you think about it why pay 330+ for a copy of 64 bit windows, when win xp pro cost $60-100 and preforms better?? Thgat or you already have a copy of xp.

Thsi being said i would totally buy Vista if i had to BUY a copy of windows (but if you have a restore xp disk or an oem or retail copy ... you don't need to).

So while i don't dislike Vista at all , I also don't like it more than XP at all. Making XP the better choice, that in it does run better.

OH ps why doen't you show your illogical bias some more, "fairly insignificant comparisons" , "5-10 FPS at 150 frames doesn't tell the whole story."

Hmm,. really (from second link):

Falcon 4.0

Shit boys that a 50% loss in fps , dwon below the normally noticable level of 60 fps.

Silent hunter

Ok not bad, but still more than 5-10 fps

GTR2

45~11 fps (for most 25 ish) . Quite a bit.

COD4

22~8 OK Not that big of a difference , but still there, i mean   about 15 fps less on a game is big.

From the 3rd link,

Company of heros

vista 47, xp 61  (thats big)

And while your argument , well my comp rocks so much who cares; is atm reasonable. In the future your computer will not be as fast compared to newer games released, and then you will need those 20+ fps.

PS. i picked benches that were FAVORABLE to vista.  And showed a good deal of games, and used high end systems, etc. stuff that helps vista benches.

PS. Most people do not feel 10-40 fps nothing, because its a lot (often you will get less from sli or x-fire). IIf you care about preformence you care about a loss of 20ish fps. (its often roughly 10-15% (sometimes much more).

Additionally, DAS you realize off the bat in responce to me you basicly say were do i get my numbers , i post that stuff. Then you recognize then rationalize. (IE you ignore and or make excuses for the facts to protect your beliefs).  Why do you not just say darn I guess i was wrong XP really is faster than Vista. Because i proved my 10-15%, which you questioned, and more.

"  I download and upload at about twice the rate I had with XP. " - this has nothing to do with the os. downloads and uploads should be 100% limited by your isp service. IF not your rig totally sucks , whichs sounds like the case of your old computer. (Or a massive segmented and reg f'ed Hdd).

Originally posted by LiquidWolf

 

Originally posted by hdnine

I recently bought a Nvidia 8800 GTS 512 card to go with my 6600 Dual 2 Core CPU and 2 Gb ram. I am currently using XP and as i understand it, upgrading to Vista will give me extra lighting, shadow, particle and volumetric effects. Even though this probably will look nice, i am somewhat reluctant to get Vista because of the hassle of installing it. The plan would be to keep a copy of my current XP installation but i'm not sure if i simply can copy it back if Vista doesn't install correctly?

So what do you guys say... is DX10 worth the trouble?

I suggest you move to Windows Vista and preferably Vista 64bit with about 4 gigs of RAM.

 

Pay no attention to those who cry XP is better, simply because most people don't understand how these OS's are produced.

Honestly I didn't till yesterday when my boss got back from Vista training in Denver. Microsoft works on a timeline of projects, and each OS is just a culmination of the projects completed up until that point (hopefully in a stable form). It was interesting to discover that Microsoft doesn't work on OS's, they work on projects that are then compiled into an OS.

Windows ME was the first version of Windows XP to be released, and it was released horribly. Microsoft continued on their project timeline, up until the release of Windows XP, which wasn't a great release either, but today it is hailed as the best Microsoft OS.

Windows Vista is the next culmination of all the projects Microsoft has completed thus far, and though you could compare it to Windows ME in terms of what version of this family it is... it had as good (if not better) release than XP did from what I can see and hear from the old timers here at work. This can really only bode well for their next OS.

This next OS, Windows 7, is basically Windows Vista + more completed projects. The same as Windows ME was to Windows XP. So while you could wait for that one to be released, you would have an easy time transitioning to Windows 7 if you used Windows Vista.

I use Windows Vista Ultimate 64bit with 4 gigs of RAM, AMD 6000+ Dual Core and an 8800GTX. Things run great, I recently upgraded to a 24inch monitor and all of my grames have been running GREAT at 1920x1200.

While I have not really noticed anything amazing with the DX10 in Vista (Except some nice effects in LotRO) I really believe that is more the game's fault than the OS. AoC would be a game to watch to see if DX10 is done right. I still suggest you take the move to Vista just to get a better understanding of it. Just see if you can get your hands on the hardware to more than run it nicely.

EDIT: Also, according to the Vista Trainer in Denver, Windows 7 will be 64bit ONLY so I HIGHLY recommend doing Vista 64bit if you can.

This was posted long after my post which, totally discredits his statements, Learn to read. Take some time to research. Read my post 3 posts up

Originally posted by DAS1337

 

Originally posted by Jetrpg

 

Originally posted by hdnine

I recently bought a Nvidia 8800 GTS 512 card to go with my 6600 Dual 2 Core CPU and 2 Gb ram. I am currently using XP and as i understand it, upgrading to Vista will give me extra lighting, shadow, particle and volumetric effects. Even though this probably will look nice, i am somewhat reluctant to get Vista because of the hassle of installing it. The plan would be to keep a copy of my current XP installation but i'm not sure if i simply can copy it back if Vista doesn't install correctly?

So what do you guys say... is DX10 worth the trouble?

Zomg no.

 

PS these are BEST case situations , once in a while its far worse than this. (ie 40-50% slower in odd cases, ir comps a bit slower already).

1 - vista w/ 8 gb of ram will run you game 10-15% slower than xp with 2 gb ram.

2 - DX10 will run yoiur game 5-10% slower than dx9 , with minor improvments in picture quality.

3 - You will need to buy new ram and a 64 bit windows os ($300-500)

Ok all of this for what?

Bingo thats why a new windows is gonna be out in 2010-11  and xp is still being sold at quite high rates. This points to the fact ... why vista? Bingo why vista?

If i did not already have an os ... ok then i would buy vista ulta 64 bit. However, due to the fact that i do have xp sp0 (thast right the orginal disk) Why ? I just streamlined it and burnt it and installed sp3 rc2 ona  new comp i built 1 month ago using an os i bought like forever ago.

Where do you get your percentages?  I just recently went from a XP rig with 2gigs of RAM to a Vista rig with 8gigs of RAM and you are WAY off.  I literally load screens at least double or triple the speed of my old rig.  Sure, Dx10 causes slight performance loss, but no duh.. when you add extra bells and whistles, that sort of thing is going to happen.

 

 

I will never go back to XP, once I got Vista running properly, It was so much faster than XP ever has been, and this was before SP1 for Vista.  I download and upload at about twice the rate I had with XP.  I haven't had a single problem with any game that I have.  This even goes back to Starcraft and Diablo.  I have had zero problems with any and all applications that I have or have had in the past with Vista.  The only issue I had was with my old GPU (Geforce 6800 Ultra), where it wasn't compatible with Vista for some reason.. probably that it's about a five year old card.  I just recently updated to a 9800GTX and OC'd it, I run CoD4 at a stable 75FPS (max hz on my monitor), 50-70 UT3, and I can max out AoC and run 50-60FPS. 

 

I don't know where you're getting your numbers.. but I have had first hand experience with both OS's and I don't regret the day I made the switch.  Not at all, not even close.  Maybe there is no difference to a gamer that doesn't know any better.. but having a rig that can deal with a Dx10 game at good settings will allow you to see things and feel things that you've never dreamed of on a PC video game.

This is true because  YOU GOT A NEW RIG, HELLO .

I could look them up i should look them up ... i did for a video card comparision thign where thing one dude was all like NO radeon , i was like no you don't know jack. And he was liek yes i do linked a year old sli preformence benchmark . I was like rofl.

Trust me i know my shit.  (like if you knew you coudl disable vertical sync in COD4 and see your real fps, be it an option or config edit.)

i know on my comp with a  weaker video card 8800gts  not even overclocked i get 250-300 fps in counter strick and 150-200 fps any where in wow. (doesn't use video cards well). i forget my bio shock scores.  but i hit 17.5 on 3d 06 not even pushing my system.

Bahh , ill do it. open the links look that the page and the following pages. For games its hands down. Only tomshardware even gets close in fps , because of the rig they used and the fact they only looked at 3 games.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xp-vs-vista,1531-4.html

http://www.simhq.com/_technology2/technology_110d.html

Don't look mommy say theres not more...

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTMzNCwyLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

WAnt more? Thought not. And for all you smack talkers out there; points at the dude that was liek with the right hardware vista is better... no its not, also for the dude that was like how many of u use vista, they just read websites; Well i think the evidence is clear. Vista is it stable i think so, runs good yes, secure yep, moves information well you bet, plays games better than XP . . .  No sorry try again.

The facts are if your a gamer stick with XP, unless you need to buy and os becuase you don't have one ... then feel free to pick up a 64 bit vista (why buy a older os?, unless u can get it cheep).

Id leave them all in. It doesn't hurt you , windows just doesn't know how to use 1 gb of it.

however if you wanted to get rid of soem remove two sticks, one from 2nd slot and 1 from the 4th slot. (check ur mebo manual, or pull from the same colored slots)

Originally posted by Pheace

I found this one particularly funny:

 

"Q: As I often play with a very small group of people (three to eight), will smaller guilds be supported?

A: Absolutely! As long as you have the minimum number of members (six), you’ll be able to make use of all of the features of the Living Guilds system."

 

 

That's the best "No" I've seen in years

 

Yes i saw this also ,  and its sad. Read it, u can make use of all features...

Thsi does not say or deny that larger guilds will be able access these systems 20 times faster than small ones and use them 20 times more frequently giving them a significant advantage over smaller guilds.

IE they stated this in a way to allows my statement to be true, yet safe face.

So what you say big guilds should ....

Should they ? I personally think forcing people into big guilds is bs. WoW does that and most people freakign hate the shit out of it. If anythign mythic mantra has been allow everyone to experience and compeat... Hate to see them drop the ball to encourage UBER guilds. Instead of makign a system that effectively uses large or small guilds.

Not saying its one way or the other , simply my fears.

It will be fine, its an old old 33 . But no worries.

Push comes to shove , buy a new mebo for $90-230 and bingo top of the line system. But this should not be needed.

I just hope Small guides , 12-18 players will be able to play and experience the game as well as large guilds.