| (Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) | |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 2555 Joined: 19 Mar 2008     | |
BANNED  Posts: 4378 Joined: 21 Aug 2008     |
Unless you are [H]ard like I am, I haven't met very many people who are dyed-in-the-wool PC gamers who have spent a couple thousands of dollars (what's a couple? $3000? $4000?) for any of their systems to last for several years.
How many times does it have to be reiterated that Vista isn't ideal for craputers? User was banned for: Microsoft and the World Domination of Gaming&Communication. (Permanent) |
Muckraker  Posts: 345 Joined: 17 Dec 2007    |
It really depends on the graphical settings that your school has Vista set to. If that video card is pushing the lower spectrum of the system requirements, but Vista is running with all of the graphical bells and whistles turned on, of course it's going to run terribly. My home computers have excellent graphic cards and even I have all the graphical options turned off in Vista. They may be pretty, but they are unnecessary and use extra recourses that could be used for something else. Vista in general just needs a little tweaking by the user to run very well. But once it has been tweaked, it runs great. Better than XP ever did for me, at least. |
BANNED Posts: 4378 Joined: 21 Aug 2008 | On modern hardware and modern tasks/stress tests, Vista and Windows 7 kill XP in terms of performance. I've been able to run 15 1080p movies at once and still have DWM (the windowing manager) work perfectly with both Flip3D and Switcher (Windows Expose-style effect). XP...Well, there aren't any 3D windowing effects for it so I guess that's moot. But there's always the responsiveness of dragging and resizing windows which can be discussed. XP gets its ass handed back to it on a platter when it comes to windowing and general responsiveness. And live thumbnail previews of all of your windows is one of the most useful things I've ever used. User was banned for: Microsoft and the World Domination of Gaming&Communication. (Permanent) |
Pulitzer Laureate  Posts: 857 Joined: 24 Mar 2008    |
How the hell does that make any sense. Instead of learning a variation of something you know you'll go to the trouble of learning a complete unknown. Add to that if you are looking for user friendliness and a less steep learning curve, It sounds more like you're in the market for a mac. The whole idea that the problems with vista have to do with the UI is bizarre, it is premised completely on the XP system, and I actually found it much more intuitive than any Windows system that has come out yet. The argument that "I learned windows in the mid nineties and demand it not change for the better or worse" is just unintelligent. The reason Vista has been "abandoned" has absolutely nothing to do with the UI. Vista had huge stability issues; the system often failed to recognize administrative users, which, when paired with the security features of the system, made it near impossible to complete a number of tasks; The software management systems conflicted with updating / uninstalling / reinstalling frequently (I had a bitch of a time getting Photoshop CS3 on my Vista system) Pain in the ass. I did end up switching back to XP, but I regret losing the Vista Interface, it was really solid. I have not checked out the new windows OS right now, but if it can give me the stability of XP with the UI usability improvements offered in Vista, I would recommend it easily. But I will have to wait until the Gold Master release to form a final opinion. God... "New versions of Windows are too hard to learn." My eyes roll. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1441 Joined: 15 May 2008   | I can't wait to get the new install. From what I hear, it's more efficient than Vista. And doesn't bug out as much. Or it won't when it's an official OS. I hate Vista... |
BANNED Posts: 4378 Joined: 21 Aug 2008 |
Although it's too late now, you should know that the vast majority of stability issues were due to bad third party video card drivers and were fixed even before SP1 came out. The only times I have ever had to restart my computer have been to install some programs. And many of the UAC prompts have been removed/edited with SP1. Having installed the entire CS3 package on too many systems to count now, I have never had a problem with it; my condolences to you for your problems though :[ User was banned for: Microsoft and the World Domination of Gaming&Communication. (Permanent) |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1173 Joined: 13 Nov 2007     |
Yeah, that's why I follow the "skip a system" rule. I didn't buy the PS1, I got the PS2, and I'll wait until the PS4 comes out before I start playing the PS3 games I missed in the meantime. I didn't get the first Xbox, and after three fucking RRoDs I got my money back on the 360. I'll wait for the 720 now. And so on.
Yeah, that was kind of my point.
Good point. |
Pulitzer Laureate Posts: 722 Joined: 16 Apr 2008     | Quick question - does Windows 7 come in 32 and 64 bit versions like Vista does? I currently have the 32-bit version of vista and have 4gb of ram which means 1gb isn't being used at all. I'm thinking about upgrading. Just not sure if I should get vista 64-bit or wait for Windows 7. |
Press Junketeer  Posts: 480 Joined: 11 Aug 2008     | I only used Vista for a few months early in its life span and I really enjoyed it and found it very intuative once Id got use to it. The only reason I went back to xp was that Razer were very slack about releasing 64bit drivers for my sound card, and I got fed up with not being able to use it fully. Now there are drivers Im tempted to go back but I have so much installed it would be a nightmare. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1988 Joined: 24 Sep 2008   |
How much "hardcore" PC gamers pay for their systems is moot. A $600 PC is going to run like complete ass and only get worse as time goes on; within a year, it will be considered so thoroughly obsolete that you might as well chuck it and buy a new system, if it isn't right when it's purchased (which, if you want to play games on it, it almost certainly is). A $600 console is considered appallingly expensive, but it's going to last until the next generation, which is going to be at least three or so years. |
BANNED Posts: 4378 Joined: 21 Aug 2008 |
I've never had any of my $750 computers (the magic number) become obsolete after a year or even three years. How much of a dyed-in-the-wool gamer are you? And considering we're comparing a computer to a console, I think your comparison is rather disingenuous. You're getting a lot of functionality with a $600 computer. With a $600 console? It's a three trick pony at best. User was banned for: Microsoft and the World Domination of Gaming&Communication. (Permanent) |
Press Junketeer  Posts: 373 Joined: 15 Sep 2008     |
Ok - windows key, network connections... wow, that takes less that 2 seconds, with no typing or searching involved and only 1 mouse click :p To be honest, most of the current hate against Windows Vista comes from its poor early performance before drivers were developed for it, and plain ignorance. Apparently, once optimised and configured it is very fast, clean and easy to use, it doesn't slow down over time as XP does, and its UI is all pretty. Now, I would like to know why it doesn't come out of the box optimised, why it doesn't make it clear to users how to turn those 'are you sure' messages off, and why they felt it necessary to move everything around in the start menu. I mean, it's the first OS in a long time to change things so radically without there being a good reason - everything from 98 to XP all had the same basic layout, bar the graphical tweaks, it's what people are used to, how they use the computer - why the hell change it? Why not include and option to use the classic layout? Hell, that would have probably bumped their sales some. Despite all this mistakes and quibbles, the one that does it for me is, upon releasing SP1 for Vista, finally making it run games faster than XP, they let people know that their next OS is on its way. What? Since when does it make good business sense to let your customers know that their expensive program is in fact already rapidly becoming obsolete? How long have we had XP - it's been absolute AGES, but t hey are already announcing a successor to the successor, before it's even entered widespread usage? Absolute genius. |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1296 Joined: 19 Dec 2008    | I'm not a proffesional user. I'm not an expert. I'm a slightly above average when it comes to computer knowledge (being able to work out my drivers, reinstall Windows, work basic hardware, etc.). I mostly use my PC for gaming, Internet, Office (2003, of course) and some other work related stuff. I never used Vista. I don't see why I would want to. I've yet to hear a truly good reason to upgrade to Vista from XP. The only semi-decent reason so far is DX10, but even that's not that important. The thing I'm wondering about is, why would I want Windows 7? Is there any reason for me to upgrade? And I mean a practical reason. Not some technical mumbo-jumbo or promises of a golden future. I mean honest-to-god plain-to-see benefits to my daily activities. If the answer is "No, no immediate benefits" then Windows 7 will likely suffer the same fate as Vista. Making new a OS for no better reason than to make some money isn't going to work anymore. OS isn't cheap and most users don't want to throw money away on something that won't help them and might even make their lives harder with issues such as lacking backward compatibility, alien UI and such. |
BANNED Posts: 4378 Joined: 21 Aug 2008 |
Practical reason? You won't have enough memory in a year or two to run games in XP32 and good luck getting hardware/software support for XP64. Is that practical enough? User was banned for: Microsoft and the World Domination of Gaming&Communication. (Permanent) |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1296 Joined: 19 Dec 2008 |
See, now that's a good argument... ...except I won't have to worry about it at least until the next generation of consoles sine I've noticed that techincal advances in games tend to slow down to a crawl with each new console gen. My machine with XP can match the technological level of 360 and PS3, so therefore I'm set. I bought my computer a year ago, and even then it was no big deal, but it ran most current stuff on high settings. Fast forward about a year and NOTHING has changed, and I don't see it changing untill the next console generation. So, any other practical reasons? |
BANNED  Posts: 3535 Joined: 11 Oct 2008  | So we'll hate Windows 7 because of its UI or learning curve? Huh? For the record I dislike Vista because I'm a mid end pc user and Vista consumes way too much resources for little benefit, and no matter what you say won't change my opinion about it because I tried both OS's on the exact same system and I saw the differences for myself. If Windows 7 bring more benefits than XP but consumes some system resources then I'll be getting it. As it stand though this thread seems a little flame batey. So, Vista = Bad.
It didn't change on the console department but the PC has changed. User was banned for: FUN FORUM GAME THX FO PLAYIN :3. (Permanent) |
BANNED Posts: 4378 Joined: 21 Aug 2008 |
I'm not sure why you're drawing correlates to consoles since they're running at extremely low resolutions and on 3-4 year old graphics architecture. If your computer can match that, I really hope you paid less than $400 for that thing. What actually matters is PC GPU architecture is headed for a massive upheaval at the end of this year and again next year and your 32-bit Windows OS will not be able to keep up. Whatever; I'm not interested in spending too much time convincing people who have already made up their closed little minds.
Corrected ;) User was banned for: Microsoft and the World Domination of Gaming&Communication. (Permanent) |
PROBATION  Posts: 3323 Joined: 23 Oct 2007    |
I'll admit immediately: I do not like Windows Vista's interface at all. Call it conservatism if you like, but I will dispute that vehemently, because I've been following another set of user interfaces for several years now, those being the X Window System's KDE and the Linux command line, and for the seven or so years that I've been using them, along with a few ventures into Fluxbox and GNOME, I haven't yet found an interface that displeased me as much as Windows Vista's one does. It cannot be said seriously that I cannot adopt new UIs; in fact, these days, I pick them up in minutes. It's just that Windows Vista has what I consider to be some serious design annoyances, as does Windows XP, and indeed, every version of Windows. Also, I'd like the Ribbon UI in MS Office a lot more if they combined it with a standard menu system as well. There was no need to radically alter it so much while at the same time eliminating the system which people had become accustomed to. Yes, it may be more efficient for some people, but even as much as I can pick up new interfaces, I don't like it aesthetically, I don't like it functionally and while I wouldn't want it to be removed completely, I'd like if at least they'd give us both the choice of menu-based and ribbon-based. Not that it makes much odds to me, because I'm sticking with OpenOffice.org anyway. It just pisses me off in college, where computers are slowly moving towards Office 2007.
It's a hell of a lot less effete than "Vista", to be perfectly honest. If you're picking on Win7 because of its name, then I'd say that's a pretty weak position to be in, even as much as I dislike Vista. Anyway, no operating system has yet beaten the king of all cool operating system names: XTS-400. Best name ever.
As much as I've complained of this in the past, I do have to note that your average Linux installation with KDE or GNOME needs 512MB of RAM and at least 2GB of HDD space to run smoothly. Some of my installs run closer to 6GB. That said, Fluxbox runs well, albeit slowly on my 600MHz Celeron with 64MB of RAM and a 20GB hard drive, with a 4MB ATI Rage 3D. OK, you can't run Firefox without it becoming a boggy mess, and you can forget about OpenOffice.org, etc., but it's still useful for something.
And yet, Half-Life 2, being a game as it is, would run more quickly on my now-long-obsolete Athlon 64 3000+ system with 512MB of RAM and a 6600 GT graphics card than Windows Vista would. That's pretty embarrassing.
I can post on The Escapist with that 600MHz Celeron I was talking about above. The sort of computing power which would cost about fifteen quid today. The OS point is well made though.
I've argued this point before. I'll leave Fluxbox, FVWM and the rest out of this one and concentrate on KDE and GNOME. Both include capabilities for modern graphical support, with the latest versions of OpenGL, et cetera. Yes, it's a lot harder to program games for Linux or other UNIX-based operating systems, but KDE and GNOME even work on systems far less powerful than Windows Vista. All of the eye-candy would likely work on that single-core Athlon 64 I note above, including three-dimensional windows using Compiz. I'm still going to get Windows 7, but I'm not fully in support of it. The so-called "craputers" that you state would have been very desirable a few years ago, and I know perfectly well that computer prices are coming down, but the computers most people purchase are not at all appropriate for Windows Vista, even when they're brand-new. User was put on probation for: Do you think you're sexually attractive?. (3 days) |
BANNED Posts: 3535 Joined: 11 Oct 2008 |
Definition of "craputer" please? Just because you have the disposable income to spend of computer parts just to get you a stiffy doesn't mean other people do. It's a mid-high end system at best and you know it. User was banned for: FUN FORUM GAME THX FO PLAYIN :3. (Permanent) |
Gone Gonzo Posts: 1296 Joined: 19 Dec 2008 |
First of all, no need to insult me. I just don't see this big upheaval you're talking about. I mentioned consoles because almost no game is made today that exceeds the console hardware. Very few games push the envelope of PC hardware. I'm glad that there is a major hardware revolution around the corner, and if you're right then it IS a good reason. But right now it just sounds like promises of a golden future I mentioned earlier. |
BANNED Posts: 4378 Joined: 21 Aug 2008 |
How much RAM do you have? Assuming it's at least 4 gigs, if you can't get Vista SP1 64bit to run well on that, then you're doing it very wrong. Although I will never understand how someone could spend $250 on a video card and go and get less than 4 gigs of RAM when it's so embarrassingly cheap. User was banned for: Microsoft and the World Domination of Gaming&Communication. (Permanent) |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1632 Joined: 21 Nov 2008  | i must be crazy, i see nothing wrong with vista, after the first hour |
BANNED Posts: 3535 Joined: 11 Oct 2008 |
Why would I need 4 gigs of ram? 2 fits my needs already. The only thing that could be bottlenecking my graphic card here would be my CPU or heck even my monitor but those aren't. I don't feel the need to buy 4 gigs of ram because it isn't getting in the way of my other computer parts. User was banned for: FUN FORUM GAME THX FO PLAYIN :3. (Permanent) |
BANNED Posts: 4378 Joined: 21 Aug 2008 |
lol I hate it when I see things coming from ten miles away. Then again, who am I to judge? Try as I might, some people will remain consumers of media and culture and not producers of it. I'll never understand how one can only enjoy just being a passive spectator and not an active contributor, but perhaps ignorance is bliss for both of us? User was banned for: Microsoft and the World Domination of Gaming&Communication. (Permanent) |
Beat Writer  Posts: 175 Joined: 21 Dec 2007   | see i'm one of the few who likes vista. I didn't buy it per se, it came with the pc, and at first i shouted and screamed and tried to choke to choke the monitor to death, and then i got used to it. Sure some games don't play on it... but when i think about the number of games that died when xp appeared that stopped being a problem. I now prefer the interface, the security... generally everything other than its power consumption... but this is price we pay for more powerful software. And from what i've seen on windows 7, it looks like a polished vista. Could be good, but i doubt it'll warrent a buy. |
BANNED Posts: 3535 Joined: 11 Oct 2008 |
What have you contributed to us Eggo? You always come up with the contributor bullshit so show us. I know you're an audio producer or something like that but I'd like to see your work, unless of course it's some secret project for college/school/1st grade that you can't simply divulge here. How do you not know that I in fact am a Photoshoper? User was banned for: FUN FORUM GAME THX FO PLAYIN :3. (Permanent) |
BANNED Posts: 4378 Joined: 21 Aug 2008 |
I've posted music quite a few times here. Actually, if it wasn't for Vista 64, I wouldn't have been able to make it in a timely and efficient manner. Would you like to hear some?
Unless you're doing really amateur and basic stuff (at that point, you might as well use Paint), I have yet to meet a serious amateur/professional Photoshop user who doesn't use at least 4 GBs of RAM. In fact, most of them use 8GBs. That's really the best part about a 64-bit OS like Vista 64. Sure, it takes up marginally more RAM for the OS to run compared to XP32, but you get to feed RAM hungry programs like Photoshop (or really the entire CS3 suite) *a lot* more memory than you would with a 32-bit OS.
Hmm, professional digital artists use a lot more RAM on their 64-bit workstations. 8GB is standard and 12-16GBs is preferred. At least at the lab I work at. Good luck getting Photoshop, or even just XP, to run with the 1.5GB Quadro CX video card. User was banned for: Microsoft and the World Domination of Gaming&Communication. (Permanent) |
Paperboy  Posts: 48 Joined: 9 Mar 2008     | If I may contribute to this ongoing debate of Vista vs XP and why I will be getting windows 7 (courtesy of my university). I loved XP after SP2, it worked a treat. I used it up until last semester when I discovered I could download Vista for free thanks to my university being part of the MSDN Academic Alliance. Vista worked fine for me for a while, then developed a severe allergy to my graphics card. Despite this I didnt want to switch back to XP because I had found myself becoming fond of Vista's little improvements and refined look. Once you get past the initial stage of turning off UAC and telling vista what you want it to do and what you dont. It becomes a very easy and intuitive OS. So Windows 7 I believe while not only being a brand new system (Vista was based on XP and therefore did inherit a certain lack of finese) that will be able to run much more smoothly due to far more cleanly code. Will infact be such a vast improvement that it will finally be a microsoft product I would consider paying for. Now to deal with a couple of posts that concern me.
Its actually a bit of a myth. Vista doesnt consume a huge amount more than XP, if you turn off some of the fancy features it can run on almost any machine. It has smart RAM usage, so while you arnt running anything windows will soak up your RAM, but when you open a new application it will release it to allow your programs to run smoothly.
It could be your motherboard, I made the mistake once of buying a really cheap motherboard and it wouldnt run any of my favourite games well. No matter how fast your graphics card or CPU are, if your motherboard has a slow bus speed, it will bottleneck everything. If you are experiencing slow loading times this may be because windows is using the paging file on your hard drive to supplement the RAM. HDD are much slower than RAM, so this may explain laggy gameplay or long loading. To fix this. I would either upgrade your RAM, or get more modules (try to keep all your modules the same size) Ok thats all for now. Stay happy! |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1094 Joined: 11 Oct 2008  | I only use Vista because of DX10 and the quicker start up time, but those are enough to keep me using it... |
BANNED Posts: 3535 Joined: 11 Oct 2008 |
Sure lets hear it.
That's where we differ. My father does logos for a company and he doesn't need that kind of power. You only need that kind of power for really big projects like interior designs or billboards. You could argue about it if we were talking about CAD or even Maya, but personally I don't consider making well known and successful logos "amateur", neither will my dad and his big pay check. However, his company does in fact have a room full of computers that process bigger projects.
Where did I say that? User was banned for: FUN FORUM GAME THX FO PLAYIN :3. (Permanent) |
BANNED Posts: 4378 Joined: 21 Aug 2008 |
Here's an assortment of complete and incomplete works from the last year or so: http://www.box.net/shared/5z1yldbsz2
Making professional logos is a bit different from the sort of Photoshop work I'm used to seeing from professionals. It's certainly difficult work, but it's hardly taxing on hardware/software.
At the part where you were talking about how you could use 2 gigs of RAM with Photoshop. User was banned for: Microsoft and the World Domination of Gaming&Communication. (Permanent) |
Paperboy  Posts: 11 Joined: 31 Dec 2008  | I dont know if its just me, or does anyone remember when XP first came out, and the amount of criticism that it got? Mind you its nowhere near the criticism that Vista has had, but sooner or later we will HAVE to move onto a new os. |
BANNED Posts: 4378 Joined: 21 Aug 2008 |
Unfortunately, most people here were too young/not interested in computers at the time to remember that. It's a great thing then that we have the internet to help us remember! User was banned for: Microsoft and the World Domination of Gaming&Communication. (Permanent) |
Gone Gonzo  Posts: 1149 Joined: 28 Apr 2008   |
Shadowrun, unless they gave it a DX9 patch. |
| (Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) | |
Reply to Thread
|
|
Not registered? Sign up for a free account! |
As silly as this may sound, I'm not going to risk it. I'm happy with my good old XP and I'm going to damn well stick with it.