Really? A majority over the business/enterprise market?Actually when you post that I do hope you realize that the Enthusiast Market is the minority while the Consumer market is the Majority.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Really? A majority over the business/enterprise market?Actually when you post that I do hope you realize that the Enthusiast Market is the minority while the Consumer market is the Majority.
<<major snip job>>and believe it word for word <<more snipping>>
We have every confidence that gaming in Vista will come around. At the moment, however, if youre concerned about squeezing every last framerate out of your system, there is not a compelling reason to leave XP.
Actually when you post that I do hope you realize that the Enthusiast Market is the minority while the Consumer market is the Majority. Although I understand what you are saying, there simply isn't enough of Enthusiast to make premium cards a "top" priority.
And, other premium products like sound cards, video cards, CPUs, ram, PSU's, etc are simply not common place in Best Buy, Circuit City, CompUSA and other brick/motor and online stores. There is a reason for that and no real explanation is needed.
Those consumers who have average computer setups will see that having Vista is not for them. How do you sell Vista to a XP user who only:
Reads email
Browse the net
Use MS Office
Let his kid or grand kid use the computer for a report for school
and maybe a shareware game here and there like pool or pinball?
I am not lumping all consumers in that category. There are many consumers out there with a wide variety of uses for their PC be it Home use or Office use, etc. This is were the article begins to shine when you review the benchmarks. Once you walk in the shoes of a consumer will you understand why they have their opinion of Vista.
Because most of the people who claim that Vista offers them nothing haven't tried it, or haven't tried it long enough, or haven't studied it enough to learn about the features and improvements that really would be interesting to them -- if they knew about it.
Another sloppy article. Not a good trend guys.
This is a very good point. I saw little to no difference playing CS:S in Vista. Sure the numbers might have been smaller, but what happened to gameplay experience and image quality being of paramount concern? I couldn't notice a difference.I must admit, I am fairly disappointed in this review from HardOCP after all the preaching they have done about Game play experience vs Canned benchmarks.
Those consumers who have average computer setups will see that having Vista is not for them. How do you sell Vista to a XP user who only:
Reads email
Browse the net
Use MS Office
Let his kid or grand kid use the computer for a report for school
and maybe a shareware game here and there like pool or pinball?
so because the conclusion reached don't meet with your views you slate the artical...
That's not what the article says. The article says that (with old drivers, mind you) Vista performs worse in games than XP. I may be an exception to the rule as far as users around here go, but I do not spend a majority of time on XP gaming.Its right there in green and red.
At this point in time, there is no reason to migrate to Vista.
Very good point - a fresh install of Vista will perform significantly worse than a several-day-old install of Vista: Superfetch, Indexing services, etc.
How long after install of the games did you test the rates? It takes some time (?1-2 weeks) for Vista to learn what applications you use regulary and cache them for superfetch.
Article typo:
In the table for the system specifications you list the 7600 as a Gigabyte 7600 GS and not a
7600 GT. 7600 GS also appears at the bottom of the table next to the price.
I don't know if this has been mentioned already, but the human eye CAN see more than 90 and definitely more than 60 frames per second. In some instances, fighter pilots can see up to 250+ fps. I'm sad to see the myth still going strong and sadder to see it as being a lead up to a conclusion in an [H] article.
You have to look past the percentages to the amount of people that percentage represents.What is the market share of ATi to nVidia?
If it is 80% ATi to 20% nVidia then sure moan about this artical
If it is around 50% what is all the noise?
Also where are the DX10 cards from ATi ? if one existed then sure again moan, but hey they don't exist
Certainly a valid point. The reason is that we only had NVIDIA hardware available at our offices when I cooked up the idea to do an article like this. It actually would have been rather interesting to see what ATI is doing with Vista. As Kyle said in the Digg thread, a follow-up to this experience will definitely be explored. Adding ATI to the mix would be one thing that we could do. Thanks for the feedback.
You have to look past the percentages to the amount of people that percentage represents.
In reality, it is closer to 60% Nvidia, 40% ATI in the Discrete card category. The mobile and integrated markets are heavily dominated by Intel. The numbers change all the time, but 60/40 is a rough estimate from the past 6 months.
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/12/06/q3_06_graphics_market/
BTW...did you even read the article? The article was comparing performance of XP to Vista, not another NV vs ATI comparison. No DX10 games were played. There are none out there yet. So your argument that the DX10 ATI cards aren't out has no basis in this comparison. Its a meaningless, thoughtless comment that only serves to raise your postcount. If the test is for DX9 games and how Gaming is under Vista, why weren't the other 40% (ATI card owners) represented to prove/disprove its the OS causing the problems?
I feel that each new release of drivers is an improvement in vista. We should see how the ATI cards fare in the comparison.
Not everyone uses Nvidia video cards, so why did you only use Nvidia hardware?
None of these games were DX10, so why couldn't you test an X1900 series and an X1600 series to show if ATI has the same driver issues in Vista?
Like practically all Vista testes so far - it's always the drivers!!!
And why on earth was NV used?! It's like [H] has a boycott on ATI cards.
Just so you know, it's spelled "article".I did read the artical, likewise I have read this thread. my post wasn't in response to the artical, it was in responce to the response to the artical
Just so you know, it's spelled "article".
This article is worthless.
It's just taking up space on [H]'s front-page.
Because there's nothing to be learned from it.
As a reader, what could possibly be taken away from this article?
That old Nvidia drivers are slow?
Wow! Useful information.
Why would we care?
He didn't compare with ATI drivers.
He didn't use the latest NVidia drivers.
one-two punch, worthless article.
It says he put a bunch of work into this article, and then new drivers came out-- so what?
We're the customer. It doesn't matter what he did. We're the ones who are viewing the ads.
Don't come out with a bunch of obsolete information for your customers and then justify it with "well I spent time on it." -- that has no use for us. Why would we care?
You should have said "well, gosh, I spent some time on this, but the article isn't ready, so I'll need to spend some more." That's your job man.
I'll be the first in line to say that the DRM and other anti-consumer ware in Vista are a big turn off for the new OS. But as far as the Vista video drivers go I think nvidia has done a good job recently. I realize they basically had to be coerced at gunpoint to create them, but now that we have them its looking upward.
This may sound like a desire to bolster my blogs hit rate, but in this case I did a small (very small) performance test of 64 bit Vista ultimate with the latest nvidia drivers and found that they were very good for DX9 games. In fact, the non-overclocked 64 bit Vista scores took second place to only an overclocked XP-SP2 install on my limited test. I was mildly impressed. If you are interested here is the link: http://www.gamingsignal.com/2007/04/64_bit_windows_vista_ultimate.html
edit - Please be nice on commentary about my blog. Its mainly for my work friends and I to have a place to talk about games. We aren't trying to be a "premier" blog so as I said, we are not trying to increase hits. I just thought my study on 64 bit Vista video performance might apply to this discussion. ;-)
What "anti-consumer ware" are you referring to? How will these things affect your day-to-day usage of the OS?I'll be the first in line to say that the DRM and other anti-consumer ware in Vista are a big turn off for the new OS.
I've never seen someone flamed in 14-line Sonnet form before...
That's good to know, IMO many complaints are due to the fact that this is the second time we had a NV only article.
What "anti-consumer ware" are you referring to? How will these things affect your day-to-day usage of the OS?
Unfortunately, I don't; and that's why I asked.I think you know what he's referring to...
"World of Warcraft at greater than 90fps, where the human eye can't even see the difference. "
Maybe I'm the only one old enough to have gone from Dos to Vista and remeber all the growing pains.
Again, we need directX10 in XP!!
Again, we need directX10 in XP!!
Winner!
I jumped on XP when it released but Micrsoft screwed up on a LOT of things in Vista.