What's funny is some people embrace ignorance.Hey now, some of it was really funny!
----
let me try something...
Vistajuice, Vistajuice, Vistaju... nevermind, dopey is already here spreading more FUD.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Why hatred of Vista?
- Thread starter SuperCell
- Start date
- Status
----
let me try something...
Vistajuice, Vistajuice, Vistaju... nevermind, dopey is already here spreading more FUD.
What's funny is some people embrace ignorance.
----
let me try something...
Vistajuice, Vistajuice, Vistaju... nevermind, dopey is already here spreading more FUD.
Ignorance where ? have you ever used anything other than microsoft products on your computer ? If so what did you use and why is vista better ? simply saying i'm spreading FUD isnt really a constructive argument.
A
altcon
Guest
I think the people who are to blame for most of the Vista dislike are the support companies.
Half of the products out there still have very shaky drivers, which are less consistent and stable than XP Drivers.
Also, from my experience Vista's stability and responsiveness are not yet on par with XP when it comes to heavy apps. I've had crashes/freezes on multiple games and when comiling big projects in VS2005.
I like Vista but I'm waiting for SP1 to resolve performance issues and hopefully the big companies to roll out stable drivers. Till then I'm in Dual boot (though I must say I've yet to find a reason to boot into Vista).
Half of the products out there still have very shaky drivers, which are less consistent and stable than XP Drivers.
Also, from my experience Vista's stability and responsiveness are not yet on par with XP when it comes to heavy apps. I've had crashes/freezes on multiple games and when comiling big projects in VS2005.
I like Vista but I'm waiting for SP1 to resolve performance issues and hopefully the big companies to roll out stable drivers. Till then I'm in Dual boot (though I must say I've yet to find a reason to boot into Vista).
There are a couple things people repetively fail to understand it seems..
First of all, hardware vendors are making business. This means they're not fiddling with their crotch with the sheer idea someone would make a new OS for them to start developing drivers on. No, the sheer mathemathics dictate that the majority of development will be targeted towards the largest group of users i.e. XP. Vista is a complete pain in the ass for the hardvare vendors because it forces them to rewrite the drivers and as if that wasn't bad enough, poses severe limitations on how they can do that. All this for a _very_ limited market still at this moment. So funding will be low.
Second: Superfetch. Superfetch doesn't get the cached data from a black hole. It has to cache the data at bootup which is why your hd blinks and your system remains unresponsive for minutes after bootup even though the desktop opens conningly fast. After SF fills the ram with crap you might not even need the memory has to be reallocated when you load something new and subsequently Vista will be slower than XP in this case. Slower by a mile as many gamers have found out. This cache fill also causes erratic behaviour sometimes when the memory manager fails to reallocate resources (leading to stuttering programs seemingly out of memory).
Third: Aero. Aero uses DX to work and that takes up resources. When you launch up a game, Aero itself turns off but the resources are not freed up. If they were, you'd have to wait for seconds before the Aero effects were relaunched after quitting a graphical application. So the proof that Aero permanently reserves resources is easy to see - Aero is instantly back on when you quit a game.
Fourth: Business use. Only the most unimaginably retarded IT consultant wanting to hang himself from his balls would recommend a migration to Vista at this stage. There are endless amounts of pitfalls and unknown equations in this. 100% of it managers I've talked with say they're privately testing Vista but will not even consider migrating their users to it as a result of that testing. They actually laugh out loud when mentioning it.
First of all, hardware vendors are making business. This means they're not fiddling with their crotch with the sheer idea someone would make a new OS for them to start developing drivers on. No, the sheer mathemathics dictate that the majority of development will be targeted towards the largest group of users i.e. XP. Vista is a complete pain in the ass for the hardvare vendors because it forces them to rewrite the drivers and as if that wasn't bad enough, poses severe limitations on how they can do that. All this for a _very_ limited market still at this moment. So funding will be low.
Second: Superfetch. Superfetch doesn't get the cached data from a black hole. It has to cache the data at bootup which is why your hd blinks and your system remains unresponsive for minutes after bootup even though the desktop opens conningly fast. After SF fills the ram with crap you might not even need the memory has to be reallocated when you load something new and subsequently Vista will be slower than XP in this case. Slower by a mile as many gamers have found out. This cache fill also causes erratic behaviour sometimes when the memory manager fails to reallocate resources (leading to stuttering programs seemingly out of memory).
Third: Aero. Aero uses DX to work and that takes up resources. When you launch up a game, Aero itself turns off but the resources are not freed up. If they were, you'd have to wait for seconds before the Aero effects were relaunched after quitting a graphical application. So the proof that Aero permanently reserves resources is easy to see - Aero is instantly back on when you quit a game.
Fourth: Business use. Only the most unimaginably retarded IT consultant wanting to hang himself from his balls would recommend a migration to Vista at this stage. There are endless amounts of pitfalls and unknown equations in this. 100% of it managers I've talked with say they're privately testing Vista but will not even consider migrating their users to it as a result of that testing. They actually laugh out loud when mentioning it.
No.
Many OSes are based on *nix, but there are exceptions.
Windows is such an exception.
Its good that proponents of such software know it so intimately , especially when they accuse others of bullshitting and spreading lies
It is, however, an accurate argument.
care to elaborate ?
I don't think the situation with XP -> Vista is in any way similar to 9x -> 2000. The move from Windows 98 and ME to Windows 200 was huge in terms of stability and security. Windows 98 was infamous for giving you the blue screen and crashing constantly (it was not a good operating system). I did not complain during this upgrade, nor did I find it cumbersome. It was happy to finally use a stable operating system.
Again, I think this is bullshit. I switched over to Linux, which is a much bigger change that XP to Vista. A lot of people are switching to Mac, which once again is a much bigger change than XP to Vista.
This thing is: People don't like unnecessary change. They want something in return for the money they pay for upgrading their OS, and for the time they spend learning to use it. I have still not figured out what I am getting in return for switching to Vista.
If I want security and eye-candy I'll use Ubuntu. I don't even care for Direct-X 10, which incidentally runs on XP and seems to be something of a dud. All the games I like already run perfectly well under XP.
And there goes the FUD again.
DirectX 10 does NOT run on XP.
Here is a simple textured cube from the DirectX 10 SDK:
http://bohemiq.scali.eu.org/Tutorial07.rar
Go ahead and try to run it in XP, linux or whatever.
If you manage, please share with us how you have done so, so we can enjoy DX10 on XP aswell.
This is what it should look like:
Not only that but expect dx10 to be implemented in cedega/wine/alky real soon
Are you sure?
Currently they don't even have solid support for DX9 past some elementary SM2.0 support.
Most games only run in Cedega/Wine/etc because they are running on low-end graphics paths, or because there are specific patches for that particular game.
They're still a long way off from making DX9 work with all features, for all games, without requiring any specific workarounds... And even further off making DX10 work.
Well it depends on the title mostly , for instance S.T.A.L.K.E.R runs well but the HUD fonts arent rendered properly which would be easily fixed i spose , its not that cedega/wine/alky cant implement dx* its more down to how the title itself works and as its all closed sourced there is alot of educated guess work i suppose. The devs at the alky project which is now closed also have the dx10 tech demo running on mac , i'm not sure which version of openGL they are using mind. I do know that openGL 3.0 will implement all the features of dx10 and then some more so getting future titles running should* be much easier. Not too long ago cedega implemented their latest swift shader which is shader 2.0 and i must admit i'm quite impressed but as ever its not an ideal solution because of the way wine which cedega is based on works , dont get me wrong its good but it wasnt really intended for gaming. Alky on the other hand has been conceived with high end gaming in mind , oddly enough their first release alpha/beta whatever you want to call it is for winxp http://www.fallingleafsystems.com/ , these are the people who intend to implement dx10 *level* graphics on winxp using openGL 3.0 and the SDL library , in theory it should work well if you have the hardware.
Not really, DirectX has some very strict specifications, which can mostly be found in the DirectX SDK and the DDK. There are also tools to perform various WHQL qualification tests for DirectX drivers.
It shouldn't be all that hard to create a proper DirectX system without sourcecode. I think the main problem with Cedega, Wine and Alky is the lack of expertise. What you need is some highly experienced game programmers with a few years of DirectX *and* OpenGL development under their belts. People who are familiar with the ins and outs of both.
I have actually done some beta testing for swiftshader... an early demo was actually written mostly by me (the one that rendered the normalmapped car from the ATi demo).
I ran into various nasty bugs with the shader emulation, some of which the author was too arrogant to even admit at first (one of them was that it didn't properly clamp interpolated texture coordinates, or something to that effect).
I had to show screenshots of both his software and my Radeon 9600 rendering the same scene and circle how certain areas were not lit properly by his software... and even then he would try to argue that it might be my 9600 that is not working properly, not his software.
With an attitude like that, you're not going to get far.
And it also made it obvious that he lacked hands-on experience in actually developing DX9 code. Writing shaders is something completely different from writing a renderer.
Ok, this I'll respond to. Vista is a self-tuning OS, and it takes time for Vista to "learn" your patterns of usage and how the hardware and OS can best be adapted to those usage patterns. What I read there was that you installed Vista, loaded up some software and then ran your benchmarks/tests and were dissatisfied. Vista gets faster over time whereas XP/XP x64/etc gets slower, so a single day install/benchmark/test/results thing ain't cutting it, bub.
Sorry, ain't buying it.
I use all the software that you do, actually. Been an avid SoundForge user for over a decade now, and I do 3D work, occasional gaming, etc. Basically the same stuff you do, I'll bet.
And I've been testing Vista since day -.0001 long ago, and I'll stand right up and say your results are bullshit. They're meaningless because IF (and that's a big IF there) you didn't use Vista for 2-3 weeks of time with those applications on a daily basis and IF you simply installed Vista for benchmark purposes, your results are skewed and absolute rubbish.
Install Vista, install all those applications, use them daily for 2-3 weeks minimum and then redo your benchmarks/tests.
You'll be quite surprised, I promise.
If you people are going to consistently bash Vista, at least do it after running it DAILY for 2-3 weeks MINIMUM because that's how long it takes for Vista to become "self-aware" and run the best that it and your hardware will allow.
If not, then your benchmarks, your testing, hell your opinions are useless drivel that just continues to pile up. All the crap I keep seeing being spewn out by people that use the standard tagline of "Vista uses more resources" just need to shut it, really.
If your position is that "Vista uses more resources" means Vista actually puts every fuckin' last bit of horsepower in your PC to use - the hard drive, the RAM, the video, everything - well excuse the fuck outta me. If I built a monster box, I'd be a lot happier knowing it's giving me what I paid good money for and making itself faster for me instead of sitting there like a bump on a log while I'm browsing and listening to some tunes, sorry. That position some of you are taking with "Vista uses more resources" is simply untenable by any meaning of the word.
'Nuff typed.
"FUD"?
Is that not just about the most abused word in the English language? It's sort of like "smurf" or "marklar".
The purpose of FUD is not to directly criticize a company or product but rather to instill a sense of distrust regarding said company or product. To convince them that it is not a safe choice. My main complaint was quite straight-forward: I don't see Vista bringing anything interesting to the table worth upgrading for. I might be mistaken, but that does not make it FUD.
A while ago I heard of efforts to bring DirectX 10 to XP, though I may be mistaken regarding its completion. If so, then I apologize. Though I can't see why it couldn't be implemented under XP.
I think that in the end, the title of this thread is hyperbole in that Vista is not met by so much anger as a resounding "meh".
I was referring to your statement that DX10 runs on XP, which instills a sense of distrust regarding MS and Vista. "But MS says it only works on Vista, why are they lying to me?".
I don't feel like going into the technical details again, but bottom line is, yes, there have been efforts, but they failed so far. There is no properly working DirectX 10 for Windows XP. And yes, theoretically it could be implemented. But Microsoft isn't going to do it, and it's too late for third-parties now. By the time they would get something working, Vista would already be the most popular OS, and DX10 support on XP would no longer matter for most.
You could be right about cedega devs not being the best in the world , i've seen it many times in the past and its always not worth the money. but i saw it a few days ago playing gta sa with all the bells and whistles at high res flawlessly ( i know its not a new game but it is dx9c ). I'm pretty sure alky will be different though , for one its owned by google now so i remain optimistic , i mean the short of game developers actually releasing titles for all platforms. There are quite a few highly competent game developers for *nix - dare i mention icculus and TTimo
so this is even more reason to remain optimistic along with openGL 3.0 ( icculus has done some fantastic work by anyones standards with the unreal series )I use 140MB-ish of ram at idle with 0 swap , how long does it take you from idle to get your browser started and get to your home page ? I promise you mine will be quicker.
Who are you quoting here? I never said that. I understand perfectly well why Microsoft is not releasing DirectX 10 for XP. It has nothing to do with trust.
Eh... personally I doubt Vista will gain any greater popularity. Just do a search for Vista sales on Google, and you will find a great number of articles hinting that Vista is not exactly the most popular kid in school.
bbz_Ghost said:
I do hope you are familiar with the term:
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
If you claim that Vista becomes self aware after 2-3 weeks of usage and actually finds a faster method of calculating Pi by this time, then I think we would like to see some evidence.
you mean readahead? that thing that 1) makes my Gentoo desktop boot in 15sec instead of 20 and 2) fills 1.5Gig or my RAM during booting
yer readahead is good, but most of the time what the heavily "mirror /usr to RAM" is overkill since there are apps/libs that would get mirrored to RAM that would not get run all the time, I mean I don't use a CD-burner every time I boot my PC.... shite I aint even used it in a few months.... however I use gimp daily.
soo A custom readahead list is used which is alot smaller then a full-blown mirror and is alot more relevant to my usage
so I have gone from
Fresh-boot == 120Meg of RAM used that over time as the kernel keeps data in RAM creaps up during use
from 1.5gig or RAM after boot that also creaps up during use
to
~600meg of RAM after boot that also creaps up during use
This actually gives a faster boot since while disk reads operate in parallel to CPU instructions, it will stop if that head is needed for a write. A smaller readahead is therefore more beneficial.
Well, OpenGL 2.0 was also pretty much on par with DX9 at one time... but outside ID and their Doom3 engine, nobody seemed to use it.
How would OpenGL 3.0 change that?
urr.... Epic and unreal... d0pamine even said it in his post
Then there is the X* lot
- America's Army
- Baldur's Gate 2 – Defaults to D3D
- Call of Duty
- City of Heroes
- City of Villains
- Counter-Strike
- Doom 3
- Dwarf Fortress
- Enemy Territory: Quake Wars
- Frets On Fire
- Half-Life (not Half-Life 2)
- Neverwinter Nights
- Prey
- Quake series
- Rage
- Serious Sam
- Serious Sam 2 – Defaults to D3D
- Starsiege: Tribes
- Unreal series
- Warcraft 3 (D3D by default under Windows, can select OpenGL renderer from command line)
- World of Warcraft (D3D by default under Windows, can select OpenGL renderer from command line)
- Homeworld 2
It's a fictional quote. Expressing what people might think when reading your claim that DX10 works on XP.
Vista will be installed on most new PCs, so that will spread Vista automatically.
Other than that, XP will be EOL eventually, so Vista will be the only choice left.
Come on, it's inevitable that Vista surpasses XP eventually.
Just like XP has surpassed 2000 and 98, and 98 surpassed 95 etc.
It had little to do with what useful features the new OS had for most users.
Wrong example though. Vista doesn't calc pi, your CPU does. A modern OS has very little, if any, effect on this sort of basic calculation speed.
The main differences are in terms of I/O performance, multithreading, memory management etc. No OS can magically make a CPU execute its instructions more quickly, or more slowly.
urr.... Epic and unreal... d0pamine even said it in his post
Last time I looked, Unreal 3 was a Direct3D game, not OpenGL (at least on Windows... I don't think a linux version exists yet?).
Most games in your list are either outdated, or running on the Doom3 engine.
Care to put a list of Direct3D games next to it?
ORLY so does that mean Linux uses DirectX native then
Unreal3 uses OpenGL as well and it is coming to linux native
ORLY so does that mean Linux uses DirectX native then
Unreal3 uses OpenGL as well and it is coming to linux native
No, Unreal3 does not yet use OpenGL, there is no OpenGL in the Windows version.
It is being ported to linux and Mac for OpenGL... But tell me... Why did they use Direct3D for Windows if they were going to make an OpenGL version anyway?
This OpenGL port is in the same class as the ports to consoles.
It's more or less the same game, but it's not a 1:1 conversion. Chances are the graphics and/or performance of the linux version will not be comparable to the Windows version, just like with consoles.
Many titles use openGL , its just that id's doom3 and quake series use it exclusively , for instance WoW can use the openGL renderer , also farcry and not forgetting ut2k3/4 and many others , thing is people have a low opinion of openGL because they use it on a windows machine and they only see microsofts implementation of it , you can infact install libSDL for windows and see openGL in another light , i'm not saying it will be alot better but for sure it wont be any worse
never doubt the power of ryan gordon and openGL , Unreal3 does use the openGL renderer but it hasn't been released yet so we cant see it but i can assure you that its working on a machine right now , saying dx* is better than openGL * is abit dumb really , ofcourse microsofts implementation of openGL will be worse , they designed their system to use dx
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Taiurn541SE
thats openGL and it doesnt look too shabby
http://www.techmixer.com/download-directx-10-for-windows-xp/
I figure after all the broohaha over this, I'll give this a shot tonight on my home system. Has anybody tried this yet?
stop backpeddling
I did, with the tutorial I linked above, it didn't work.
The logfile included a message that a certain ChangeState() function was not implemented.
And this is an extremely basic DX10 example. So you really think that a complex game like Crysis is going to work, if you can't even spin a cube in DX10?
And that's not even talking about performance. Even if they do ever manage to get it working, how fast will it be?
Well concidering that Flight-Sim-X is DX9 and the DX10 was used only for performance (And the MS dev's said that you can get the same performance from DX9... ie DX10 is pointless) dunno why there is image differences
I'm not backpeddling.
There is no working Unreal 3 Tournament for OpenGL.
And there will not be OpenGL in the Windows version at all.
So as it stands, Unreal 3 is not an OpenGL game, but a Direct3D game.
As I already stated.
"no working unreal3 for openGL"
please"!!!!! UT3 is coming to Linux and Mac. There is a OpenGL version in existance. it might not be consumer ready BUT it exists to say it doesn't is just stupid I mean the client for Linux/Mac due ~1month after release so if it is out soon/now getting a codebase overhall in a month is unrealistic
Well, where is it?
Also, you are avoiding the question.
I originally stated that OpenGL 3.0 would probably not make a difference, since OpenGL 2.0 didn't either.
So in that light, I asked why Unreal 3 uses Direct3D on Windows, and not OpenGL, especially since they are developing OpenGL versions for linux and Mac.
And your answer is?
odoe
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2001
- Messages
- 9,796
I warned about infractions.
- Status