0

its expensive and not worth getting unless your getting the ultimate version or the really expensive ones.
DirectX 10 is i think only for vista and i really want that but some people say its not worth it because vista will slow your gaming performance by 10-15%:rolleyes:

4
Contributors
9
Replies
10
Views
10 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by Teachingmyself
0

This really isn't true, I have benchmarks from my personal PC (which are on a disconnected HD) which showed that some of my games actualy played 'better' on vista. Specifically, the ones in beta, which are coded to take advantage of DX10. Granted, you do have to have a pretty good PC for it to perform the way that mine has, but saying it will slow 'all' gaming performance by 10-15% is WAY over the top.

0

whats the difference between the beta one and the real one will the beta one be just like the normal one after a while of updates or is it just really a demo

0

They don't 'upgrade' the beta versions, they release new versions. There are far too many bug fixes for them to release them via an update system like Windows Update. This is why when each new version of the Beta came out '1,2, RC1, RC2, etc.' you had to download the new install media and upgrade your exsisting installation. Beta software is not 'Demo' per say, Demo software limits you on what you can use, where as Beta typically gives you most of the functionality, so that you can find flaws and report them to the manufactor. The beta versions of Vista included quite a bit of debugging software which is not present in the RTM version, which from my estimation increased performance of CPU processing by almost 20%, and my ram usuage is down from 1.5GIG (CPU Idle) at the desktop to well under 700Meg.

0

700 Megs idle is still quite high, for people with 1 gig of RAM. Still, I suppose you could disable Aero and get some resources back. What I really didn't like about Vista are the new folders. Somehow, the colors and the customisable options did not appeal to me. I wish MS would add the facility to switch to the Task oriented view found in XP.

0

I had a play-around with the training release of Vista on friday

The last beta did drop 10-30 fps on games but remember guys it's a beta,they're trying for stability and then they tweak the rest

Personally I think it's a hog,especially all the new aero tools.Thankfully you can turn them off but who wants a speedometer on the desktop eating half your performance to tell you its eating half you're performance?!

Anything below ultimate and you're denied direct access to you're HD unless you're logged in as admin.I suppose it's handy for Grandpa Joe getting his first pc but to anyone computer literate it's a massive pain in the neck.

Any program that run's in vista asks you if it can run after you open it.Again get's annoying but increases security against viruses(and covers microsoft because you allowed it to run.big surprise there, not!)

Make up your own mind but I'm not touching it with a 10 foot pole outside of work until it's established and bugs ironed out.

Oh and get this marketing blurb direct from microsoft-
"Vista will never need third party anti-virus software"

Heard it all before guys

0

Thankfully you can turn them off but who wants a speedometer on the desktop eating half your performance to tell you its eating half you're performance?!

I like that speedometer :D

Anything below ultimate and you're denied direct access to you're HD unless you're logged in as admin.I suppose it's handy for Grandpa Joe getting his first pc but to anyone computer literate it's a massive pain in the neck.

Agreed, but that is why there are different versions, to target different groups of people

Any program that run's in vista asks you if it can run after you open it.Again get's annoying but increases security against viruses(and covers microsoft because you allowed it to run.big surprise there, not!)

We knew this was comming though, I mean, people can sue McDonalds over a hot cup of coffee that has warning labels, they can sue microsoft for making an insecure OS. They are just trying to protect themselves.

Oh and get this marketing blurb direct from microsoft-
"Vista will never need third party anti-virus software"

This is so taken out of context.

He never advised Vista users not to use antivirus software. What he did say, was that he was so confident in Vista’s new Defense-in-Depth architecture and failsafes that, under limited circumstances, he would allow a family member to run the operating system without active anti-virus software.

0

Actually that quote was copy/pasted directed from microsoft.com/ireland.Notice it says "3rd party" anti-virus.

They are(or at least were) saying that the new windows defender in conjunction with the ask before opening a program will be all you need.

I assume you're talking about the CEO of microsoft when you say "he".I was just quoting a marketing blurb which was set aside and highlighted on the page exactly as I copied it,including quotation marks.

I tried to give my balanced opinion of Vista but you came across as a microsoft advocate so just trying to point out I am NOT anti-microsoft.Heck if it wasn't for them every support technician(myself included) would be out of a job.

I did remind everyone this was a beta and the speedo is down to personal preference.I think it's the most needless thing since the Aero clock displayed just over the normal taskbar clock but there are some pretty nice touches like the Rolodex and live mini-windows to help navigation.

To stick with my original verdict-some snazzy touches but a lot to be ironed out before I buy it.

0

Well, I never saw that comment on the microsoft front page, so I assumed you were talking about the interview with one of their employee's, who specifically stated that you SHOULD run an anti-virus application on Vista. (which is why I didn't even consider they would put something like that on their website). Their defender program is anti-spyware (and doesn't even really do that good of a job) so it's pretty much null-n-void in my mind.

In terms of being a microsoft advocate, noone who knows me, would ever use that term, as I am usually quite the opposite. I will however say that Vista is a decent OS, if your machine can support it. One thing that does get on my nerves is when people start spreading information, when they are not even using the recommended specifications, or sometimes even the minimum specifications, which is what brought me to this thread to start with.

I have actually had some pretty bad experiences with Windows Vista and my video cards.

Hopefully the remaining issues will be fixed in the first couple of windows updates ^^

0

That's pretty much what I was trying to say man,just felt I was being maligned when you said I took it out of context.

I can't see the quote anymore on the Ireland and Vista page and I reckon they must have discovered a vulnerability and changed tune.It was quite noticable,you know when they take a quote out of marketing propaganda and stick it somewhere on the page in a big fancy font to make a quote look like fact(they meaning all marketing companies)

What I would recommend to anyone is forget about speed drops,frame drops etc you've heard about in the beta and wait until we see the actual release.Beta is Beta,my version was extremely messed up but ,again , it's a beta. I tried to just deal with what I reckoned would be still around when the final release hits the home user(literally ;) )


Vista is a new O.S. and for the first time microsoft have drawn a line in the sand and said "Right that's it,you want lotus etc. to run?Tough! We're going for new architecture this time round!"(not a quote this time :) ) Give microsoft a year to work out the bugs that they will find once a few million people use it daily.Then buy it.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.