![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Whats the point of switching to vista?
- Thread starter H3d Case
- Start date
TwistedMetalGear
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2005
- Messages
- 2,200
Then don't switch. Simple as that.
Gaming performance will increase once DX10 becomes the standard.
Gaming performance will increase once DX10 becomes the standard.
Ur_Mom
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2006
- Messages
- 20,690
I am a huge Vista advocate. But, if you don't need it, don't upgrade. Simple as that. If you don't have any reason to upgrade: DON'T!
Games don't support DX10 yet, so that arguement is moot. There are a lot of features of Vista that are great. But, with gaming: XP is faster. If you want faster frame rates, don't switch yet. Drivers aren't mature yet for both video card manufacturers (well, the major two).
As soon as DX10 games come out, that will be your reason to upgrade as WinXP won't play them under DX10 (more specifically, Direct3D 10).
It's like buying a new model of car every year. You don't NEED it right away. Sure, some of the features are nice, but you can live without them. But, when your car uses leaded gasoline and only unleaded is available, it's time to upgrade.
I run Vista on 5 machines and love it. I game with a couple of them, and I consistently get >30 FPS, so I'm not worried if I'm getting 50 FPS or 60... I can't tell the difference.
Games don't support DX10 yet, so that arguement is moot. There are a lot of features of Vista that are great. But, with gaming: XP is faster. If you want faster frame rates, don't switch yet. Drivers aren't mature yet for both video card manufacturers (well, the major two).
As soon as DX10 games come out, that will be your reason to upgrade as WinXP won't play them under DX10 (more specifically, Direct3D 10).
It's like buying a new model of car every year. You don't NEED it right away. Sure, some of the features are nice, but you can live without them. But, when your car uses leaded gasoline and only unleaded is available, it's time to upgrade.
I run Vista on 5 machines and love it. I game with a couple of them, and I consistently get >30 FPS, so I'm not worried if I'm getting 50 FPS or 60... I can't tell the difference.
You could do what I did with XP and just wait. I did not migrate over to XP until a little under a year and a half ago. I was quite content with Windows 2000 Professional as it let me do everything I needed without problems on my old Athlon XP system (rock solid!). It wasn't until games started *requiring* XP that I gave in and finally moved over.
I don't see myself going to Vista any time soon either. But then again, I'm a creature of habit - and old habits are hard to break.
I don't see myself going to Vista any time soon either. But then again, I'm a creature of habit - and old habits are hard to break.
It's going to be a while before some game developers stop making games for DX9 path. At least 1 or 2 years.
Of course Halo 3 but that is just MS trying to force you to change to vista.
where does it say its a gamer's operating system? it doesn't. there's no reason whatsoever to upgrade, let er mature. then and only then if dx10 is leaps and bounds above 9 and you must have it, upgrade. dont think for one second a dx10 title is gonna look like utter crap on dx9Why switch to windows vista when it degrades gaming performance? I dont understand
vista and a new gpu must proove itself first. its doing f'all since its inception and will do f'all for awhile yet
and hasn't it already been shown that such benchmarks actually don't give a true loading as what occurs during a game...
ie a 3dmark test just shows how good yr setup is for 3dmark tests NOT for gaming
Why switch to windows vista when it degrades gaming performance? I dont understand
Simple.
Because if everyone keeps happily using their existing Windows XP licences, then money from Windows sales isn't rolling into Microsoft. New installations won't be enough to satify MS -- the really big userbases are the corporate ones, and they're notorious for keeping the same computers for as long as they can stand, and longer.
Whereas if MS rolls out a new OS, everyone including a decent chunk of the conservatives will buy it, resulting in a bigger cash flow.
This is the same reason why it keeps releasing new versions of Office, too. Just how many times do you need to re-hash a WYSIWYG editor and a spellcheck?
It's all about that income flow, baby.
Microsoft did too good a job with XP -- with 98, it crashed often enough that people were more than happy to give MS money for a new version of windows, continuing the cash flow MS has become used to. With XP, people are perfectly happy with it and see no reason to upgrade.
My plan is to not upgrade to Vista for as long as I can. I left upgrading to XP until most games coming out were XP only. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", after all.
stamsek
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2005
- Messages
- 15,467
I bought Vista when it came out in January, however I installed it a few times and went back to XP twice. Reason being, drivers were not ready, game performance was horrible, and it was error prone.
Now, less then a week ago, I finally ditched XP for Vista...for good. Why? I saw the demo for "Lost Planet" was DX10 compatible and I have an 8800GTS, so I wanted to see how it was. And after seeing DX10...I know XP will not find it's way back to my harddrive.
Now that I've been using it for almost a week, I do not see the performance drops in games such as UT2K4 that I saw prior. The drivers are maturing to a degree. Not too mention I like how the programs are organized/ran from the start menu, and all the otehr bells and whistles.
I did however have to go from 1GB of ram to 2GB, this was mainly due to Spider-Man 3's game requirements in order to run smoothly, but I do see a difference in various other things. I also have the built in 512mb flash on my motherboard that is used for readyboost, but I don't know how much of a difference that is really doing.
All in all, I'm glad I upgraded. And even if you don't upgrade now, you will sometime in the future. Especially with Microsoft's 'put your arm behind your back' type marketing strategies.
Now, less then a week ago, I finally ditched XP for Vista...for good. Why? I saw the demo for "Lost Planet" was DX10 compatible and I have an 8800GTS, so I wanted to see how it was. And after seeing DX10...I know XP will not find it's way back to my harddrive.
Now that I've been using it for almost a week, I do not see the performance drops in games such as UT2K4 that I saw prior. The drivers are maturing to a degree. Not too mention I like how the programs are organized/ran from the start menu, and all the otehr bells and whistles.
I did however have to go from 1GB of ram to 2GB, this was mainly due to Spider-Man 3's game requirements in order to run smoothly, but I do see a difference in various other things. I also have the built in 512mb flash on my motherboard that is used for readyboost, but I don't know how much of a difference that is really doing.
All in all, I'm glad I upgraded. And even if you don't upgrade now, you will sometime in the future. Especially with Microsoft's 'put your arm behind your back' type marketing strategies.
Realistically speaking, of course "it's all about the money"...but that is the ideal goal of any company. That aside, MS released a new OS to keep up current technology and to stay ahead of the game.
Though I do agree with you about them updating MS Office every year, I was really surprised when I used Office 2007 and found that I really liked it. But NOW I wonder where they're going to go with it
Random-- How do you like Spider-Man? Does 2GB run it pretty smoothly?
stamsek
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2005
- Messages
- 15,467
It runs great now. 8800GTS and 2GB of ram = very smooth with settings cranked up. The game is like a beefed up version of Spider-Man 2 for the PS2. I love swinging, jumping, and climbing all over the place. And all the audio was done by the actors in the movie. It's just too bad teh movie was lacking in several areas.
regardless, its nice hype. many have had dx10 compatibility for awhile and f'all to do with it. I've seen no reason to upgrade from my 7800gtx for almost 2 years now and I'm quite picky about gameplay.
no shit, and it doesn't follow the comic books. total botch and quite lacking
Point of Vista? Security and Stability, and it's a major improvement in both areas, not so much blue screens which I never had with XP anyways but programs don't bring done explorer anymore, which was common in XP for me. Protected mode IE7 = me happily surfer everywhere instead of on the mainstream net. etc. DX10 and WPF will beging to be utilized eventually and I am more than ready. I lost a few frames/p/s coming from XP, but have more than enough to play in CS:S and BF2142, but these problems are nvidias, some cards have no FPS loss, many nvidia ones have a lot. I have a hard imagining where this can't be lived with, but whatever.
spine
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2003
- Messages
- 2,722
Vista Pro's
More secure - Irrelevant to me. Never had a virus with XP, ever. Never installed any AV software either (fastest way to fuck up a PC). Only PC illiterate* people get infected.
More stable - XP only really crashes when something's at fault. It rarely fails on it's own for me. Maybe the odd explorer crash, but that's it. Not enough to warrant an expensive new OS that will also cost me in inevitable hardware upgrades.
Vista Cons
Need I bother here?
Ok, so I must admit I haven't really used Vista. My mum recently got a reasonable Dell laptop with Vista pre-installed so I thought I'd give it a try. But then having just waited 3 mins for it to shutdown and a further 2 to boot again I didn't even bother. The laptop was formatted 10 mins later. It just made me laugh how truly pathetic it was. XP is now on that laptop and it runs smooth and fast as it should. Is she ever gunna DX10 game on it? no, not ever. Will anyone? Well no; laptops will not be able to play a DX10 game at any decent speed this side of 2010. Laptop+Vista=lol
*not derogatory
More secure - Irrelevant to me. Never had a virus with XP, ever. Never installed any AV software either (fastest way to fuck up a PC). Only PC illiterate* people get infected.
More stable - XP only really crashes when something's at fault. It rarely fails on it's own for me. Maybe the odd explorer crash, but that's it. Not enough to warrant an expensive new OS that will also cost me in inevitable hardware upgrades.
Vista Cons
Need I bother here?
Ok, so I must admit I haven't really used Vista. My mum recently got a reasonable Dell laptop with Vista pre-installed so I thought I'd give it a try. But then having just waited 3 mins for it to shutdown and a further 2 to boot again I didn't even bother. The laptop was formatted 10 mins later. It just made me laugh how truly pathetic it was. XP is now on that laptop and it runs smooth and fast as it should. Is she ever gunna DX10 game on it? no, not ever. Will anyone? Well no; laptops will not be able to play a DX10 game at any decent speed this side of 2010. Laptop+Vista=lol
*not derogatory
1 virus here in all these years but I went looking so I deserved it. in total agreement with your "more stable" comments. xp's memory mangement is rock solid. I had to order a laptop for my "green dad" and had quite a few hoops to jump through NOT to get vista. their best valued laptop was a few 100$ less than the exact same one with xp. told them I was going elsewhere if they didn't give me the exact one I wanted. the tech put me on hold for awhile to come back and say his supervisor ok'd my choices. and they still don't use it internally yet pressure people to use it. nice! I'll upgrade one day I am sure, but on my time!
Totally agree. Although I have to use AV just for added safety since I watch a lot of pr0n sites, even so, I remember it stopping 2 maybe 3 infections last year.
This new added layer of stability is total bull IMO, I never had random bluescreens on XP, it was always due to some beta video drivers and totally bugged games. Because of this move by M$, now we don't have Directsound3D anymore hence rendering our Audigy cards useless.
XP64 is the way to go for me, it has the best of two worlds: Win2k3 kernel + lightweight of XP. Even tough some people argue that X64 offer no real benefits for 32bit applications(even slowing them down), I have to totally disagree. It does everything faster, from boot-up to launching applications/games. I gain about 15~20 extra fps on HL2 with the exact same settings, not to mention load times between levels is about half the time it requires.
I simply don't see any reason to upgrade to Vista, even DX10. Unless you wanna show off with your shiny Aero interface, which IMO is way overrated. Get Beryl for Linux if you want a great looking 3D desktop. It's just like those people that compare they Vista Performance scores, just to see who has the bigger "you know what".
FrEaKy
[H] Movie and TV Show Review Guy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2003
- Messages
- 14,113
I dont understand why I go out and buy Windows XP Pro a year back and now I hafta think about getting Windows Vista? I dont understand why MS cant do what they did with Win98, just keep going till it fully phases out.
I dont see the point in spending $150 last year and now im looking at $200 again this year for the new OS that I honestly do not feel is really worth the money
I dont see the point in spending $150 last year and now im looking at $200 again this year for the new OS that I honestly do not feel is really worth the money
Well if MS had stuck to it's Win 98 plan, you wouldn't have been able to buy XP last year because it would have already been phased out. 5 years without a new Microsoft OS is not normal, if you were worried about buying an obsolete OS you should have waited. I know Vista was in public beta spring last year, it's not like it was a huge surprise.
FrEaKy
[H] Movie and TV Show Review Guy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2003
- Messages
- 14,113
itrs a huge surprise they only support a single OS, that is a surprise! I mean common!
I dont want Vista, its just to screwed up for me, but I want to be able to play DX10 games
I dont want Vista, its just to screwed up for me, but I want to be able to play DX10 games
DisrupTer911
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2004
- Messages
- 1,193
i hear that!
steadle now, we've yet to see dx9 and 10 comparisons. there's no way dx9 is guh'nuh suck. until then, let the ASSumption rants continue. wait till its out awhile and matures, there's been "workarounds" since the computers inception. this should be no different, regardless of what's been written out there at this time
dx10 is like those chrome, gay as ass, bling bling rims wankers put on their vehicles. got them? 'nuff said
dx10 is like those chrome, gay as ass, bling bling rims wankers put on their vehicles. got them? 'nuff said
stamsek
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2005
- Messages
- 15,467
G'ßöö;1031089289 said:steadle now, we've yet to see dx9 and 10 comparisons. there's no way dx9 is guh'nuh suck. until then, let the ASSumption rants continue. wait till its out awhile and matures, there's been "workarounds" since the computers inception. this should be no different, regardless of what's been written out there at this time
dx10 is like those chrome, gay as ass, bling bling rims wankers put on their vehicles. got them? 'nuff said
Lost Planet demo. DX9 and DX10. Sounds like a comparison to me.
TheMadHatterXxX
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2004
- Messages
- 3,021
Theres no point right now, atleast not for gaming. I made a mistake switching it, stuff that didnt crash in Windows Xp, does now and if your looking for support with games its hit or miss. The final answer you'll almost always get is "...this game was not tested for Windows Vista so your out of luck..." I've found that games that worked for some people on Vista don't work on mine, NFS Carbon for one, I tried everything everyone posted on the EA forums for it from compatability mode to renaming the Movies folder to disabling the desktop or whatever and still nothing. So now I have to shelve the game because EA probably will not put out a patch for 6 4 bit vista.
bah! I spent some time trying to find an indepth comparisons since I've been off the computer for a week moving, I still see nothing worthy. yes, you do point out there is one way to see some of the differences in two downloadable demo's, but there's nothing indepth as said
moral? unless you're not enjoying the sun and being outside, spend counltess hours tweaking the crap =P
TheMadHatterXxX
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2004
- Messages
- 3,021
Haha, some of us work fulltime so we get neither. Anyway, it's strange some of the older games will work fine but games that came out around a year ago will not, another example is Armed Assault and CnC 3, when i had my 7800gt's installed they refused to run while I had SLI enabled, when I turned off SLI they worked fine. Updated latest drivers and everything ....I'm sure during the latter stages of development for these games someone knew Vista was coming out. How that would've affected release and time budget constraints with development I don't know.
I think we should get a sticky thread of games that have issues running in Vista maybe?
Btw that Windows Vista crap where instead of blue screening out immediately where it tells u the display driver attempted to recover from an error is extremely annoying I would rather it crash and burn then wait 5 minutes while the goddamn screen flashes intermittantly with that message, gives me no control and then it just blue screens and reboots anyway!
Anyway as far as i've seen so far all these pointless securities, features and UAC garbage are useless
I think we should get a sticky thread of games that have issues running in Vista maybe?
Btw that Windows Vista crap where instead of blue screening out immediately where it tells u the display driver attempted to recover from an error is extremely annoying I would rather it crash and burn then wait 5 minutes while the goddamn screen flashes intermittantly with that message, gives me no control and then it just blue screens and reboots anyway!
Anyway as far as i've seen so far all these pointless securities, features and UAC garbage are useless
As with any new operating system there will be patch upon patch for bugs upon bugs. The intial releases are usually the ones the hackers and malware writers attack the most because it has the most loop wholes and problems, ESPECIALLY with a brand spankin new OS. So my suggestion is to wait it out, I will not touch the bastard love child until SP2 comes out. Then, maybe, just maybe I will upgrade my rig to accommodate for it. But as of right now there is absolutely no reason for me to upgrade.
True, XP SP2 was already good here, but I still appeciate protected mode IE7, personally.
Yes, it's not a major difference, but I noticed Vista is better, so that makes me happy too.
No, but why post "I don't like something and I won't state why" when others disagree? That's just pointless, you might as well list your beef(s).
Dare I say, something sounds wrong with the laptop/install? My shutdown is on par with XP, and start-up is faster, I actually dislike booting into XP and never do anymore since Vista is better at everything I do, because of this. And you didn't have to make the directx 10 laptop gaming = 2010 statement without proof, the intel santa rosa platform is directx 10 and I doubt they would bother with dx10 support if it couldn't play games decently as they could have just left it dx9 in that case. It won't beat a 8800 ultra, I'm sure, but next year's mobile gpu's based on g90 or r700 should, that is quite some time before this 'side of 2010'. And right now there's not a lot of vista only apps, but vista apps should be pretty cool once WPF, WCF, .NET 3.0, and other vista technologies get more used. With 40 million vista sales, these should come quick and plentiful, though of course some time will be necessary as it has only been 4 months since Vista was released to consumers.
Are you kidding? Is this just a 'me too' post or something? Windows 98 was superceeded by ME 2 year later, and XP is getting the same support (bugs + security) that 98 got after ME was released. Basic fact checking wouldn't kill you guys. And you don't 'have to' buy vista, there aren't even any vista-only useful apps/games out, just some dx10 patches for a few games that make little difference, until something major comes out that puts dx10 or other vista technologies to good use, you could stick with XP and probably long after that if you are truly not wanting to spend the money at all. Your existing apps/games will continue to function, same as if MS had not released vista, which again makes me wonder why you wrote what you did.
Sounds like a worthwhile idea.
We heard the same thing from the win2k fans, don't see too many of them around any more, and Vista has way more over XP than XP had over 2k.
ivan_gromov
Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2006
- Messages
- 973
Why switch to windows vista when it degrades gaming performance? I dont understand
I switched to Vista, and I am about ready to roll back to XP. For one, Gaming is crap on it. Granted, it has some cool features, but nothing worth switching to yet. For example, In every game I play my fps would be quite high but then it would drop to some really low number and pick back up. I think I would be way happier with XP and hope that somebody will be able to port dx10 on it.
I have not yet played with Vista and to tell you the truth I have no desire. Why? Because from past experiences changing over to a new operating system after launch there are just to many bugs/problems. It seems like there are a large number of Vista advocates here that try to explain why it is superior, but then again there are people that say "I hate Vista for no apparent reason..." I think the OP's general question was a valid on as he was seriously asking what the benefits would be of switching.
A classmate of mine just recently took a IT Security job at the local Microsoft camp in Reno, NV. As part of his job he was awarded a new Toshiba high-end laptop with Vista Ultra-Premium (or whatever the high end version is) pre-loaded on it. Well the system specs weren't to bad, considering it came standard with 2gb of DDR2 5400 667. But for some reason he would get random, small applications crashes, what the techs were calling "kibble." Well after some investigation we found that Vista recognizes the built-in media card reader as a viable "physical" memory section. So he loads up a 2gb SD card into the machine and BAM it works like a charm.
Point of this story?! Why does it take a brand new system 4gb of ram to work properly? I have a single 1gb stick of PC3200 in my AMD rig at home and the bugger runs like a charm, rock stable with neary a glitch or memory problem. Yet if I were to jump to Vista I would have to invest in ATLEAST 2gb of ram to make Vista run somewhat smoothly (granted this is hearsay as it is info I have read in my tech publications).
But as the OP said, "Whats the point of switching to Vista?"
A classmate of mine just recently took a IT Security job at the local Microsoft camp in Reno, NV. As part of his job he was awarded a new Toshiba high-end laptop with Vista Ultra-Premium (or whatever the high end version is) pre-loaded on it. Well the system specs weren't to bad, considering it came standard with 2gb of DDR2 5400 667. But for some reason he would get random, small applications crashes, what the techs were calling "kibble." Well after some investigation we found that Vista recognizes the built-in media card reader as a viable "physical" memory section. So he loads up a 2gb SD card into the machine and BAM it works like a charm.
Point of this story?! Why does it take a brand new system 4gb of ram to work properly? I have a single 1gb stick of PC3200 in my AMD rig at home and the bugger runs like a charm, rock stable with neary a glitch or memory problem. Yet if I were to jump to Vista I would have to invest in ATLEAST 2gb of ram to make Vista run somewhat smoothly (granted this is hearsay as it is info I have read in my tech publications).
But as the OP said, "Whats the point of switching to Vista?"
This seems quite ridiculous to me, as I run Vista on 2GBs of RAM and don't have any speed issues at all, I play BF2142 with a good frame rate and CS:S with 80-140 fps at max details at 1024x768. I've read internet forums and found users with 1GB happily running Vista as well. Again, a problem with the system or install. Remember, people with problems tend to talk more than people without, even if happy Vista owners outnumber unhappy ones 100 to 1, more unhappy users are going to post and make it look bad, apparently they don't know this is known and think they will have some inflated effect, but I digress. And if you don't see a point to upgrading, then don't. I find Vista stabler, faster, get increased easeness in use due to more security features and less exploits relative to XP and OS X in each's first 90 days (vista: 2, XP: 20+/-, OS X: 30+/-), has superb futurability with WPF, WCF, .NET 3.0, IPv6, DirectX 10 and so on. But I can understand not upgrading, I could've stayed on XP and been well off, I just like new features and the other things I mentioned.
No, no one HAS to upgrade to Vista, or to XP for that matter. Heck, I just repaired a Mac LC for a guy yesterday running system 7 who is 100% perfectly happy with his machine. If you are fine running your 5+ year old OS (or more depending on what you run) then stick with it. Badmouthing an OS that you have not really used, or just failed to get running properly, does not make us distrust Vista, it makes us wonder about you.
Allan
Allan
Why switch to windows vista when it degrades gaming performance? I dont understand
I heard this rumour going around that theres a patch for vista and now you can do other things with it than just play games, it's CRAZYNESS I tell you!
Besides performance delta is quite small now anyhow, I would call it negligable for most games.