digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

PC gamers shun Vista, sticking with XP

tech.yahoo.com — One of Windows Vista's biggest selling points was that it was the only way you could DirectX 10, the software component that would be required to play the very latest video games in their full glory. Sure, you could still play games in DirectX 9, but the differences with DirectX 10, Microsoft promised, would be striking.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • jggube, on 05/12/2008, -80/+205XP is great for gaming, Vista just seems like a resource hog (compared to XP, at least).
    • whataboutdave, on 05/12/2008, -32/+60That's the long and short of it. "Upgrading" to Vista means my current hardware would take a performance hit. The D-X10 payoff just isn't worth it yet.
      • Sithtiger, on 05/12/2008, -18/+34I know I've got to be one of the very few who like Vista, but I do. I have Vista x64 and it's great. It's smoother than XP IMO and games run great; however I do have 4GB of RAM and a Q6600 quad core proc and a GeForce 8800 GTX. At the same time, those CPU's aren't that expensive either, so.

        I briefly went back to XP a couple days ago to test out SP3 and I saw very few reasons to stick with XP. Sure the visuals are awesome with Vista, but honestly, I think at the very least, it runs just as well if not better than Vista....at least with the hardware I have. The games I play are COD 4, Rainbow Six Vegas 2, BF2 and BF2142. I will say that I have had problems running BF2142 and BF2 sometimes, but then again that can happen in XP as well....we can thank EA for that.
        • jrbrewin, on 05/12/2008, -8/+5just to put that in to context for you.. for UK guys at least. A pre-built system (dell) of that spec, with a 22" monitor, from PC World, will set you back around £900. Now, considering the benchmark price for a top of the range PC has always (ever since i've been buying PCs) been around £1200-£1500 i think the spec you get for £900 is amazing.
          • PaulOwen, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3£700 quid for a Core Duo 3.16GHz with a GeForce 8800. not bad at all, even if it is Dell.
          • jgtg32a, on 05/12/2008, -2/+13Thats why you always build your own.
        • robthom, on 05/12/2008, -13/+9 "I have Vista x64 and it's great. It's smoother than XP IMO and games run great;... "
          Thats cool if your mortgaging the house for a game machine (or living in moms basement), but good luck doing anything else like driving your peripherals or using 3rd party software on 64bit vista. Methinks I'll take the OS that can do more than just render game pixels for my PC.
        • brianara3, on 05/12/2008, -4/+11@robthom
          I have yet to find a single one of my old programs that doesn't run on x64 Vista. I didn't have to mortgage anything to buy the hardware either (was about $1000).

          I have only seen 1 program ever that did not run (or have new version that would) on x64 and that was the Cisco VPN client. They seem to believe that 64 bit support is not needed, and have no plans to release an x64 edition. The solution to that problem (and my torrents) is to run them in an XP 32 bit virtual machine with Vmware.
          • robthom, on 05/12/2008, -8/+3 "The solution to that problem (and my torrents) is to run them in an XP 32 bit virtual machine with Vmware."
            Or... windows XP.
            :)
          • BlackCow, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Oh please mortgage the house? I am running Vista on a PC that was built before Vista, a Core Duo, 2 gigs of RAM, and a 7950 GT. Games run absolutely fine. Everything runs fine.
      • Smills, on 05/12/2008, -8/+17Actually, since SP1 there hasn't really been much of a performance hit. All of the games I play are dead smooth and run just as fast as XP (which I had installed before getting Vista Ultimate x64). Granted, I have a fairly fast system (QX9650 @ 4ghz, 4gb 1600mhz DDR3, 2x 3870X2's OC'd in CrossfireX, etc), but In XP I got 112fps in COD4 and in vista I get 114. In Crysis, in XP I got 42fps, and now i get 44 (I think the fact it is 64 bit made the difference there). Really, I see no reason, performance wise to go back to XP.

        Here is a review comparing the game performance of XP SP3 and Vista SP1. There is very little difference.
        http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302495 ...
        • Teej, on 05/12/2008, -0/+6Read the article...I'd like a few more sources but it was an interesting read! Maybe Vista and drivers for Vista are finally fixed when it comes to game performance.
        • robthom, on 05/12/2008, -6/+1"All of the games I play are dead smooth and run just as fast as XP..."
          Hmmm, so with your outrageously spec'ed system vista runs as good as XP?
          Well, have fun with that. Unfortunately everything else vista does other than rendering pixels on your monster machine is much worse than XP. For anyone who isn't a techno-fetishist or framerate queen vista still sucks.
    • lukas88, on 05/12/2008, -40/+118I was wary of a performance hit before I upgraded to vista. That was the rumor, and there is nothing worse than throwing down good money on a fancy piece of hardware only to have the operating system cramping its style.

      I installed vista on a whim one day and never looked back.

      I haven't noticed any hit in performance in games. I am not playing crysis or assassin's creed, more like portal, wow, and final fantasy XI. If there is a reduction in frame rate, I can only assume it is no greater than 5-10%, which shouldn't really be enough to keep you from the sleek and enjoyable experience that is vista.

      I am a computer nerd and I approve this message.
      • prophetpimp, on 05/12/2008, -9/+25considering that mid level hardware is the type of hardware most people play games on, that 5 to 0% hit is freaking lot.
        • lukas88, on 05/12/2008, -11/+12I was talking a 5-10% reduction in frame rate. So instead of 48 FPS in WoW I get 44. That is just an example, in reality I haven't noticed any slowdown at all. I am on slightly better than mid level hardware (core 2 duo @ 1.8ghz, 2 gb ram, 256mb 7800 GT).

          Here are some empirical tests that corroborate my statements:

          http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xp-vs-vista,15 ...
          • guntario, on 05/12/2008, -4/+25Do you remember the transition from 98 to XP? There was a performance GAIN, and was the reason why so many (myself included) switched to XP. Now you're telling me that a new OS, which benefits you nothing but costs 10% in performance is a good thing, and you approve that message? I find this kind of thinking rather disturbing.
          • potofgravy, on 05/12/2008, -3/+14I do not remember a performance gain when changing from 98 to XP.

            Does nobody remember how ***** XP was when it first came out?
          • robthom, on 05/12/2008, -3/+3"I find this kind of thinking rather disturbing."
            It is disturbing. Fanboys are only another brand of zealot. Just like a scientologist or a nazi.
          • frazw, on 05/12/2008, -3/+7@ Guntario.

            I was an early adopter of XP and there was no performance gain. At the time I was running an AMD K6-2 500MHz CPU with 256Mb Ram. Win 98 ran fine, no slowdowns etc just the standard Windows bitrot which as always is fixed by a fresh install. XP came along and I was waiting several seconds for the start menu to open.

            XP was not as fast as 98 (at release anyway).
            Once hardware caught up the problems were quickly forgotten and people began to praise XP.
            Then Vista comes out and history is repeating although a lot of us are more wary this time.
            I would expect a new OS to do more with only slightly elevated sysreqs at worse and lower sysreqs at best.
            Anyone who says that Vista is fine and "I've never had any problems so it must be ok." Clearly don't have a grasp on reality.
            The reality is that Vista has higher sysreqs than XP. It shouldn't, but the only thing I will grant is the necessity for a decent GPU but only if you WANT a fancy interface. The reality is Vista marketting was badly mismanaged. The reality is Vista came out with poor driver support (which it is still suffering from), but so did XP so why do MS not learn from past mistakes?
            You may like it but that doesn't make these problems, experienced by a large number of people, insignificant.
            Personally I'll be sticking to XP for my Windows box until I either cannot run anything or VIsta (or its successor) becomes more viable, by then though the wine project might make windows obsolete for me.
        • twe4ked, on 05/12/2008, -0/+6Yeah, but thats WOW... eh?
      • robthom, on 05/12/2008, -6/+6"...which shouldn't really be enough to keep you from the sleek and enjoyable experience that is vista."
        I think you meant the sugary and draconian experience that is vista.
      • NinjaBoy, on 05/12/2008, -4/+9I noticed a 60fps hit in WoW on my machine. Vista i get an average of 30fps XP i get about 90fps (and yes i have all the latest drivers)
        • DarkShroud, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4Did you install SP-1? Don't install nVidia Forceware software either. It messes up more things than it fixes and it has conflicts with some nVidia drivers.
        • DarknessGP, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Also, don't use the Dx10 client, if you were. It's ***** because they didn't write a dx10 client, they ported the dx9 one to dx10.
    • Murdats, on 05/12/2008, -12/+22I was running an old computer that could barely play new games like cod4, I installed vista and it could still barely play them at the same rate, so even an over the hill computer could still play games at the same level.
      • robthom, on 05/12/2008, -3/+1Whats your point? That your PC sucks? If your silly enough to put vista on a PC that is already struggling with XP then methinks it might not all be the computers fault.
        :)
    • dubloe7, on 05/12/2008, -17/+27hmm, I need that graph of how it takes ~3 times as long to copy a file to a vista computer as it does to an xp computer...
      • lukas88, on 05/12/2008, -12/+14You are right about that, file transfer is a pain in the ass in vista. It really only becomes an issue when you are transferring from a device or unzipping from an archive and the file size is greater than 500 mb.

        Considering that this type of use accounts for probably .01% of your time using your computer (unless you are a professional photographer) it shouldn't be enough to deter you from vista. Still, it warrants being fixed in some future update.
        • dubloe7, on 05/12/2008, -5/+20i transfer things to and from my file server all the time. and when I download my tv shows off of usenet they come in archive files, and i probably transfer an average of 8 gigabytes of files per week to an external device for friends who evidently don't know how to download tv shows.
          so its probably closer to 10% of my time (20% if i were using vista), so its definitely not worth it.
        • CarzorStelatis, on 05/12/2008, -2/+6Try five hours for a basic My Documents backup to external HD, or 15 minutes to copy a 500mb video file to a thumbdrive for watching on a 360/PS3.
          • tapeworm77, on 05/12/2008, -3/+4Set up a media server and stream your videos to your 360/PS3. I still miss XBMC though, too bad the original XBOX isn't fast enough to play HD content.
          • bejayel, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1I cant use thumb drives in vista since service pack 1. Expecially if i am transferring a folder. The thumb works on linux and windows XP perfectly, but vista crashes and then tells me that there are errors in the thumb drive. Then when i fix it and try transfering again, it crashes. Then i fix it in XP and it work perfectly in XP and linux again.
        • guntario, on 05/12/2008, -11/+8Do you remember the transition from 98 to XP? There was a performance GAIN, and was the reason why so many (myself included) switched to XP. Now you're telling me that a new OS, which benefits you nothing but costs 10% in performance is a good thing, and you approve that message? I find this kind of thinking rather disturbing.
      • dubloe7, on 05/12/2008, -1/+8http://www.winextra.com/2007/10/02/how-bad-is-vist ...
        not what I meant, but it illustrates the point.
        • Miff, on 05/12/2008, -12/+8I've transferred 17GB folders on Vista in about 30 minutes.
          So that guy's screenshot is either ***** or he has done something terribly wrong.

          Vista's file transfers are slower than XP, but not by anywhere near that much.
          • nicko68, on 05/12/2008, -0/+8And it's perfectly acceptable that VIsta's file transfers are slower, as long as it's by a certain amount? That's BS.
          • HolyChimp, on 05/12/2008, -1/+7Vista's file transfers are slower because they are smarter. Vista actually checks that there is space for the things you are copying before you start, not when you run out. It also continues copying other files in the background when it needs yor permission to overwrite one. XP just stops dead and waits for you.
          • dubloe7, on 05/12/2008, -1/+5I just want a fraking pause feature during file transfers, because windows can STILL not multitask.
          • ArielMT, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3@HolyChimp:

            Vista's file transfers are slower because Vista *tries* to be smarter. It instead goes through a process even more bureaucratic than you describe. How hard is it to just look at directory entries, add up some integers, and compare that with reported free space? A Unix shell script calling du, df, and cp is faster than Vista at copying files. I'd wager the folks on the Vista team wrote heavily unoptimized code from scratch that did the job and never had the chance to tune it because it, like the rest of Vista, was way behind schedule despite being rushed. (Remember that this is the same team whose bureaucratic miring resulted in 43 people taking a year to do what should've taken only three people one week: write the Start Menu functions that turn Vista off.) Such unoptimal coding wouldn't result in anything less than a performance hit users in general find unacceptable.
          • FKnight, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2HolyChimp

            Two things you need to realize:
            1) Vista only needs to figure out if there's enough space before it copies anything. Your explanation does not account for why the actual /copying/ of files is analogous to dial up speeds when on a 100Mbps LAN PC to PC.
            2) I shouldn't be able to add up the sizes of all of the files and then subtract that figure from the available space at the destination with my desktop (physical) calculator faster than my computer.
        • brianara3, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2Well...

          #1: It's copying to a network drive
          #2: It's on pre-SP1 Vista

          Original release Vista was *known* to have speed problems with network copy operations. Microsoft even announced this issue. I would like to see the same operation done on a post-SP1 patched machine, as I can verify the problem is resolved.
        • Wartz, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2since fixed in SP1
      • aussieNickuss, on 05/12/2008, -2/+5You mean multimedia files. I copied two AVI files (about 800MB) from my MacBook to my freshly setup Vista machine. It was no slower than XP was doing the same thing. I haven't expereinced any problems with general files (although I'm using SP1.....I totally skipped the launch version).
      • jrbrewin, on 05/12/2008, -1/+7removing "Remote differential Compression" speeds up file transfers back to proper speeds. http://www.adamsdvds.co.uk/tutorials/vista/file_tr ...
        • ZippyV, on 05/12/2008, -0/+5It also breaks WindowsUpdate.
          • jrbrewin, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1i don't have it disabled, as i don't have a problem copying files. As such i cannot confirm what you've written other than anecdotal forum comments that say WU works fine with RDC disabled.
            Upon further investigation i came across this post - http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/rss_tag_Remote+Di ... - which states that RDC doesn't even speed up file copies, so there you go. Maybe i should test out my own comments before posting them. :D
        • robthom, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2Fat chance of Vista ALLOWING you to do that.
        • brianara3, on 05/12/2008, -2/+1@robthom
          ... Just click on the continue button and call it a day.
        • AdamFromMyspace, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3On our gigabit network transferring large files to and from network drives, I averaged ~53 MB/s on XP. Vista SP1 with RDC was ~3 MB/s. Vista SP1 without RDC was ~7 MB/s.

          It's not a magical fix - there's still something wrong.
      • wolferz, on 05/12/2008, -6/+9It would be better if you wanted to understand why that happens and how that isn't actually relevant to anything. But then you wouldn't have yet another pointy stick to stab at Vista with.

        The problem only triggers under certain conditions and there is a fix for this problem included in SP1... though I've seen no one pointing out whether or not it is actually fixed... which would seem to indicate that it has been fixed. As it is a bug with how Vista handles large numbers of files and not a result of reduced performance it has no relevance to wether or not vista is slowe

        Personally I just got done moving around over 400 gigs of data between 3 drives. Didn't notice any kind of slowness beyond what would be normal.

        Vista is slower but then so was xp, me, 98se, 98, 95 osr2, 95, 3.11, 3.1. 3, and all those people who bitched about it then seem to be running xp now... in the end its not as big of a problem as the anti-ms crowd is trying to make it out to be. Also, this performance hit can be mitigated or completely eliminated by simply not trying to install vista on bargain basement hardware... say any new computer under 450 bux is a no-go for vista.

        Amazing what you can find out when you don't buy into the bs and actually do some research of your own isn't it?
        • CarzorStelatis, on 05/12/2008, -6/+4It hasn't. What they fixed in SP1 was slow file transfers to networked drives, not slow file copying within or between locally connected hard drives.
          • jrbrewin, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2i have experiences both slow and fast local copies between devices with SP1. the problem i have is that it seems almost random.
          • thawkth, on 05/12/2008, -1/+0Just want to mention there are alternatives to the vista file copy app - terracopy is blazingly fast for me (shareware, free to use) and there are several free options (no idea if there are any oss alternatives)
      • drmsux, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3Jumbo frames are your friend.. Set them to 9k and now all file transfers are disk-bound.
    • DefaultGen, on 05/12/2008, -12/+59I've absolutely noticed performance drops as well as games (notably OpenGL ones!) that don't run at all. More than performance drops is the stutter. Even on a clean install of Vista, my games would stutter or skip frames every once in a while which just wouldn't happen on XP.
      • Megatog615, on 05/12/2008, -11/+47I don't know why you're being dugg down.
        Microsoft deliberately gimped OpenGL in Vista.
        • PhonicUK, on 05/12/2008, -6/+8Only when running in windowed mode. Full screen OpenGL apps get no performance hit.

          The reason being that Aero and DWM can't run along side OpenGL. When a fullscreen app is launched though they are disabled so theres no longer the need to 'gimp' OpenGL.
        • boot20, on 05/12/2008, -4/+8Really? Can you provide a link for this? I was fully under the impression this wasn't the case.
        • CarzorStelatis, on 05/12/2008, -5/+9That's funny, because Unreal Tournament 99 (old game, so some issues getting it to run) runs better on my Vista system using OpenGL than DirectX
          • boot20, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2Oh you have to post fraps screenys or you're full of it.
        • ZippyV, on 05/12/2008, -5/+8Looks like everyone forgot that XP didn't come with any OpenGL support but Vista does. It's up to the hardware manufacturers to support OpenGL with their graphics cards.
        • Abomonog, on 05/12/2008, -9/+5Zippy: It's far better that windows does not come with Opengl support. Think about it this way. Opengl was invented by John Carmack. He also happened to own id software. He was also the lead designer for Doom, Quake, and virtually every id game that has been released. Vista was created by Microsoft, who can't even get directx right half of the time.

          So who do you want writing the drivers? Arguably the most talented software developer on the planet or the people who manages to further break their own operating system with each patch?
    • archangel4321, on 05/12/2008, -19/+11Vista is definitely a "resource hog." BUT that's a good thing! It's called SuperFetch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista_I/O_tec ... Vista loads programs into memory before you run it, so things run smoother. That's why the more RAM you have, the more Vista will use. Think about it, if you have 4GB of RAM, and 2GB of it never gets used...then what's the point?
      • applemachome, on 05/12/2008, -7/+11for it to stay open ready for me to fill it when I need to. Not so it can take performance away from my hard drive to fill it with unnecessary crap, and then have to move that crap to virtual memory when I load the things I want.
        • wolferz, on 05/12/2008, -4/+5it doesn't move it to virtual memory. The whole point of prefect is that the info is already on the hard drive. It just unloads it from ram and then reloads it from the pre-existing prefetch when it needs it again.

          Though I don't agree with the idea that having unused ram from time to time is automaticaly a waste... in 5 years most people they will never fill 40gigs of their 300 gig hard drives (including the 30 gigs vista uses for itself) and they will never use more than 2 gigs of ram at any one time. For these people (the majority of all computer users by far) it makes sense. I personally think I should be able to turn it off if i want. Perhaps I can... and i just haven't seen the setting yet. Honestly though, with my measly 2 gigs of ram... I haven't had to worry about it... I've yet to go over 1.7 gigs ram usage.. and that was with bout 10 instances of acrobat pro open, photoshop open with two high resolution posters loaded, and dreamweaver open. There was some sluggishness when changing between photoshop and dreamweaver... but no where else. *shrugs* It's just not that big of a deal
        • netdroid9, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4From what I understand, SuperFetch is a transparent caching thing that runs in the background when your PC is idle. It doesn't actually take up any RAM at all as far as the programs are concerned, because as soon as that RAM is needed SuperFetch gives it up. It costs bugger all CPU-wise, and chances are you'd spend that time in IO deadlock anyway. Besides, SuperFetch is just an upgraded version of XP's prefetcher, so it's not like this is immature technology or anything.
        • FKnight, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3This method of caching is also now part of Ubuntu, but it's "badass" and "cool" there.
      • robthom, on 05/12/2008, -4/+5"Vista is definitely a "resource hog." BUT that's a good thing!"
        Hehe, your a funny guy.
      • holycow83, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2exactly how is that a "good thing"? why would you want unnecessary programs running on your pc taking up ram for no reason when it could be used for bigger more ram taking processes? ie games, destop publishing and video editing??
        • DarknessGP, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1You are correct, why would you want unnecessary programs running on your pc taking up ram... Good thing superfetch isn't that. Superfetch loads programs you use a lot, like Firefox, into an unused section of ram. If you launch firefox, tada, it's in ram and doesn't have to hit the harddrive. If you don't and run something else, some other program takes that ram and superfetch marks it as used. Superfetch doesn't sit and hold on to RAM like a normal program would.
    • aussieNickuss, on 05/12/2008, -12/+23I decided last week to install Vista SP1 as my XP install was over a year old and bloated as hell. This is on a 3 year old P4 - 3.0 with 2GB of memory.....Vista runs smooth as silk! With Aero on, the whole operating system is snappy and apps launch as quickly, if not quicker than XP did.....even when it was a fesh install. It also boots quicker than XP ever did on this machine. TIme will tell wether Vista clogs up like XP does....but I'm VERY impressed so far.
      • lolinyerface, on 05/12/2008, -7/+10Only a week ago? Clean install? Sure it'll run faster then a several year bloated XP install with god knows what lurking in the registry. Reinstall XP, smooth as silk!
        • Wartz, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3vista doesnt slowly fall apart in 6 months like XP did
          • lolinyerface, on 05/12/2008, -2/+1Look at how many copies they've sold compared to XP....looks like its falling apart already, lol
        • aussieNickuss, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2Boots quicker than XP EVER did on this machine. It also feels a lot snappier than XP SP2 was when I first installed in a couple of years ago.
      • robthom, on 05/12/2008, -10/+5My dad just bought a new 1200 dollar vista machine with pretty outrageous specs (way more than he needs), and after 2 days out of the box his vista is taking 4-5 minutes to boot up. So then I went into startup manager and turned off a bunch of ***** like lightscribe, and when I rebooted it crashed and spent the next hour trying to recover itself.
        Vista is complete and utter garbage, except it is better for my dad who is computer illiterate because it only lets you do a few thing that it wants you to therefor keeping him out of trouble. Its the AOL of operating systems.
        • Wartz, on 05/12/2008, -2/+6sounds like you're computer illiterate too.
          • robthom, on 05/12/2008, -9/+1Sounds like you can suck my dick nerd boy.
          • puddpunk, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2Good call, Wartz. He is in fact a jock.
      • Cyborg326, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3the reason it's slow is because OEM put all sorts of crap on their machines. Just do a clean install
    • sirbeta, on 05/12/2008, -4/+15I too am one of the people who don't really see a performance drop. My only issues with Vista that put me back to XP was Creative's sloppy seconds driver support for their Audegy 2 ZS (drivers so bad that they don't even support surround sound). Have a Core 2 Duo 2.30ghz, 2 gigs of ram, GeForce 8500GT... Not one of the fastest by far.
      • wolferz, on 05/12/2008, -1/+8their drivers are pretty sloppy on xp too... I was forced to ditch my Audigy 2 ZS after drivers came out that always left me with problems and creative made the older... function drivers unavailable... then after 2 years the latest drivers from creative still had the same problem even though there were forum posts all over the net and on creatives own site often with more than 1000+ posts asking for the problems to be solved.

        Creative just sucks... that's all there is to it. So any way I now have a Razer Barracuda AC-1.... the vista drivers for which tecnicaly dont exist... except in beta.

        Life's a beach....
    • jrbrewin, on 05/12/2008, -8/+11every new OS is a resource hog for the first couple of years. guess what, the upgrade from 2000 -> xp was just as bad. as was the upgrade from osx 10.4 to 10.5. I just bought a new PC for £700 which runs vista ultimate beautifully, runs crysis like a dream, so i'm not complaining. So i offer the same advise i did in 2001, 2000, 98, 95... don't bother upgrading the OS. wait until you get a new PC and then run it.
      I think the fact that vista has acheived 15%, with all the bad press it's had for the past few years is impressive. Sure, it's not as good as XPs figures within the first 15 months of consumer release, but 15% sure would be welcomed by pretty much all other OS manufacturers. :-)
      • CarzorStelatis, on 05/12/2008, -3/+4Plus the fact that 98SE (which is what consumers were upgrading from) was so unstable people couldn't wait to get away from it. Whereas XP is 'good enough' for a lot of people (I'm not knocking Vista, just saying people don't hate XP) so they don't feel the same urge to upgrade regardless of how good Vista is.
      • robthom, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3My first experience with Vista was on a new computer with the aero version preinstalled. I couldn't find anything with the new breadcrumb hiearchy which I could see was going to turn into plenty of stray file bloat, and many of my games and software didn't work. Plus aero kept disabling or something and would only display a grid after awhile. Needless to say I only kept it long enough to download TJ's XP performance edition and it was night and day compared to the frustration of vista. With vista I hated using my new computer, now I love it.
    • mickrussom, on 05/12/2008, -5/+9I recently got burned with Vista SP1 destroying all my old game's sound. I experimented with Windows 2003 SP2 , XP SP3 and Vista SP1. The one OS that runs all games right now correctly is Windows XP SP3. (Some have issues, but its minor). Vista is glaringly horribly at dealing with EAX, A3D and other sound issues.

      Microsoft really needs to consider making all the huge family of directx games part of regression. Its unconscionable to not only foist Vista upon us, but to force deprecate perfectly usable and fun software.
      • ZippyV, on 05/12/2008, -2/+8Driver issues. That's why I didn't buy a Create soundcard anymore.
      • Abomonog, on 05/12/2008, -5/+3Vista can't handle EAX, A3D or even accelerated DX sound because Vista (and DX10) doesn't have accelerated sound hardware support. The only soundcard on the market that Vista can handle without problems are the software driven A-open el-cheapo sound cards. They're $19.99, only handle 2 speakers, and have no line input but Vista will run them like a charm.
        • Napalmhaze, on 05/12/2008, -1/+8Its not that it cant handle accelerated sound hardware but that it doesnt do so through directsound anymore. Many older games used directsound wehreas most newer games do ro should be using OpenAL. OpenAL in Vista will result in hardware accelerated sound. MS have a good reason for doing what they have done, however you or anyone feels about that. Creative have made a program called ALchemy which translates Directsound calls into OpenAL to restore hardware accelrated sound to older games on creative hardware. The problem really lies with the hardware manufacturers. Companies like creative are notoriously lazy and greedy, creative drivers are notoriously bad. Its about time MS forced them to clean up their act!
      • Bennito, on 05/12/2008, -0/+5Creative Alchemy is pretty helpful.
    • schoate09, on 05/12/2008, -7/+8I used to run and advocate Vista since launch up until about two weeks ago. Two weeks ago, I ended up installing Xp on my current machine for the first time (C2D E4300, 2GB DDR2, 320GB SATAII, x1950PRO, a fairly powerful machine, more than I'll ever need for what I do). The whole UI feels a lot more responsive, and my apps install/run a lot faster, I know that for a fact. I use the express version of Visual Studio at home when I'm just working on personal hobbyist programs, and I was amazed at how much faster the install process was on Windows Xp (use the 2005 versions, 2008 are too bloated).

      People claiming "I was scared, put Vista x64 on my Quad Core 4 GB of RAM people need to spring for powerful systems or stop complaining". Well, I never thought I would look back (Vista x64 ran worse on my machine, took considerably more resources), but the reality is that there's no reason an operating systems needs those specs, or to draw that much power from the outlet, to do what most users need to do. OS X runs a flashy GUI on some graphics cards pre-year 2000, there's no reason Microsoft's needs to require such resources, when Compiz fuzion kicks the crap out of it in every way.

      Vista's bloat is apparent in the constant hard drive grinding, etc. While I do miss the result of part of that (quick search), I know other operating systems like OS X's Spotlight have better implementations of it, and therefore I can only hope that Windows 7 can do it right. Until then, I am sticking with Xp through it's extended support phase until Windows 7 SP1, or unless Vista Miracle Pack 1 is released. I use mostly other software anyway (FF, TB, I don't even have IE7 installed right now, that shows how little I rely on the soon to be extinct "feature upgrades", like WMP.
    • Tr33fiddy, on 05/12/2008, -5/+5I have absolutely no issue with Vista, it runs absolutely fine on my e6400, 4gig, 8800GTS with SB XFi. However games like World In Conflict, Bioshock, Crysis and Assassins Creed run well in XP - at 30 fps and above with the resolution I use (1280x1040) and in Vista they take about a 20% hit. Unfortunately, that 20% dips the performance below what I'd call acceptable, certainly for a FPS therefore, I stick with XP.

      When the e6400 is an 8xxx or my 8800 is greater, Vista will stand more chance of staying on my computer.
    • crownedgriffin, on 05/12/2008, -5/+9I remember when XP came out. The need for 400MHz+ and 256MB of RAM was OUTRAGEOUS!
      Having said that though, I do wonder what the ***** Vista is doing with all those resources when it 2000 runs happily on 32MB and does the same basic functions.
      • SteveMax, on 05/12/2008, -1/+5Actually, XP required 32MB of RAM. It was impossible to run at that point, taking over five minutes from cold boot to displaying a desktop; but it would run.
        Also, 2000 is a better OS. Maybe not for gaming, but it was faster and more stable for normal operation. If only they added the better multicore/HT support, the hardware security updates and a 64 bits version, there would be no reason at all for XP to exist.
    • shrewduser, on 05/12/2008, -7/+3what i don't understand is that some people seem to think that their personal experience (good or bad) counts for something or is representative of everyone elses experience. if vista works for you fantastic, if you find it bloated and went back to XP. thats good, so did a lot of people (as pointed out in the article) but stop acting like it really matters what you did etc.
      • 7come11, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4you're right, becaue the purpose of this forum is to report on what you THINK might happen as opposed to your actual experience.
        /sarcasm
    • Vodd9, on 05/12/2008, -8/+4I bought a dell laptop with Vista pre-installed.
      The result: Lots of games that are incompatible, my wireless connection taking forever to connect, MUCH less battery life (even with the economy settings on), less performance, etc.
      A lot more problems but those are the main ones.
      • lolinyerface, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3All the above are true, thank god for hidden XP drivers available on HP's website.
    • brundlefly76, on 05/12/2008, -4/+14Check out todays review of Vista SP1 vs XP SP3 gaming performance at Extremetech:
      http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302527 ...

      Their conclusion is that the performance issues with Vista have been solved once and for all, and they were mostly due to poorly optimized first round graphics drivers, not Vista.
      • pathogenal, on 05/12/2008, -3/+9The internet called and they're too busy being trolls to read such articles. Thank you for your time.
    • ElAssoWipo, on 05/12/2008, -4/+5Ressource hog = maximizing your ressources.

      What's the point of having RAM if your PC won't use it to it's advantage? Since Sp1 I have absolutely nothing bad to say about Vista. It's simply faster and better. Same for gaming.
      • AYork, on 05/12/2008, -3/+2I may think about trying it again, then. Maybe. I got it a while back, and was very disappointed. I have a decent rig (Intel Duo, 2GB RAM, half a TB of SATA disk, 8-series GF video card, etc) but I just couldn't justify the generalized slowdown. I really don't care about eye candy in my OS. I'd gladly sacrifice pretty screens to have Illustrator or LabView to open a few seconds faster. When I want to work, I want an OS that just works, and does it quickly. Save the eye candy for when I fire up Half Life and Crysis. But that was OK, really. I've gotten used to each new OS having a ton of useless eye candy along with it. I know that's what sells software; if the interface looks the same, it must be the same, right?

        The main problem was that Vista was just annoying. All the "are you sure?", "Are you sure you're sure?", "Hey, this is something you downloaded, you absolutely positive you want to do this?" dialogs, the pain in the ass of sharing over the network, just finding the stuff I usually use. That last one was the clencher for me. I'm sure there's a way to turn all the annoying stuff off, but they changed the way things run so much that I had to search around just to figure out how to do the "run" command to fire up dxdiag and msconfig. I'm sure I could figure out how to turn off the eye candy, turn off all the idiot proofing, streamline it, etc. but I really wasn't motivated to. I didn't see what I'd get for my effort. Yeah, sure, use the hardware you bought, I agree. I just don't see what real use I'm getting out of it. I really don't care if my OS is pretty, so why would I use my hardware to do that? I want a workhorse. I don't care what it looks like.

        I might try it again later, but I'm not all that motivated to. I sold the install media secondhand (probably in violation of some part of the EULA), so it'll actually cost me money to do it as well. So it probably won't happen for a while.
        • ElAssoWipo, on 05/12/2008, -1/+5I got Vista 64, I turned off everything you talk about in about 5 minutes.

          I get ridiculously fast data transfer and loading screens don't even have time to complete in most games.

          You basically made the argument that Vista sucks because you're not willing to find out how it works.
          • AYork, on 05/12/2008, -3/+2Yes, I did make that argument. Why is it worth my time? I get excellent data transfer, solid OS (other than in games I think I've had one crash. Maybe), and most of my software loads quite fast in XP (exceptions are the resource nuts like LabView and Illustrator). I'm normally spending more time clicking through animations than I am waiting on loading screens. Your argument is that is that I should buy Vista, learn how to use it, turn off the annoying stuff and get....exactly the same thing?

            Why would I want that? What do I get out of the deal? I'm not saying that Vista is crap, just that it's not really an improvement over XP. I don't see the benefit.
          • ElAssoWipo, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3Security, Speed, Power, Ram.

            It does the same thing, only better. That's like asking why you would buy an expensive sports car when you can get a 1994 geo metro that does the same thing.
          • AYork, on 05/12/2008, -4/+1Yeah, nice tagline. Sounds like a quote from Vista ad copy or a line from stump speech.
            How about some specifics?
            Security: I personally have no security issues on XP. No malware problems, no hacking problems, no virus problems. Never have.
            Speed : Vista was noticeably slower out of the box, not noticeably better once "fixed" on my wife's machine (she likes the pretty).
            Power : Examples, please...? What can I do with Vista that I can't do with XP? Anything at all that I would care about? I know of nothing, perhaps you know more.
            RAM : Huh? You mean installing Vista makes a new stick appear on my motherboard? Meh. Buying a pair of gig sticks is cheaper and less of a hassle anyway.
            Unless you can actually come up with a few specifics, go away fanboi. You're worse than the mac zealots.
          • ElAssoWipo, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3You could add all the sticks you want, XP doesn't recognize more than 3 gigs of ram. Vista goes up to 8 gigs. That's more than a 200% memory increase. In 64 bit you get a 200% Ram performance increase. For starters. This has become clearly evident since sp1.

            DirectX10: Shader model 4 alone beats the crap out of directX9.

            2 way firewall.

            Readyboost.

            This could go on for about a week. Look here instead:
            http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb188739.a ...
          • AYork, on 05/12/2008, -4/+0I don't have 4GB of RAM. I have 2GB of RAM and I do video editing, major image manipulation and very large dataset analysis with no problems. Don't need 8GB, don't need Vista.
            I have one game that runs on Dx10. Saw it on Vista and yes, it was nice. Very nice, actually. Nice, but not enough to switch.
            2 way firewall: Aside from the fact that the Vista firewall is annoying as hell, Zone Alarm (even old versions of it) are fantastic at this already, and have been for years. And it doesn't automatically let Microsoft apps through.
            Sorry, I looked through that list and don't see ANYTHING that I want bad enough to justify the cost and anal pain of Vista. Maybe it's worth it to you, so good for you. But for what I want my computer to do, I don't see the advantage. I get the same functionality from XP with a few apps installed. But I gotta hand it to you on zeal.
            Look, I tried Vista and didn't like it. You do like it. I assume it adds some value to what you do on a computer. From what I've seen of Vista, that's basically making things prettier. Why is it such a big deal to you that somebody doesn't like your OS? I was just curious about what it is that makes it better for you, banking on the chance that there is something I missed. Apparently, there is not.
      • lotu, on 05/12/2008, -3/+5I don't want my operating system using my resources. I want them available for me to use for my games.
        • ElAssoWipo, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2Ok let's see here: XP 3gigs max. Vista: 8 gigs.
        • nonymous666, on 05/12/2008, -3/+2It will let the resources be freed if the games want them. When I first boot up Vista, it's memory usage creeps up to 1GB use after about 10 minutes as SuperFetch loads the cache of often-used 'stuff'. In general the machine hovers around that amount of usage, of course it will go up more as I run certain apps.

          If I then run some memory intensive program or a memory hogging game, and then I exit the game, Vista's memory usage will suddenly be back down to about 300MB of used memory. This is because the game requesting memory forced Vista to dump the SuperFetch cache so the game could have the RAM. After exiting the game, the SuperFetch cache will start to slowly fill up again over time as I use various apps.

          I love the SuperFetch feature. To me it's one of the best things about Vista. Love how when I start apps I commonly use such as Word, or whatever, they *immediatly* start. No 3-5 second pause while I stare at a splash screen. As soon as I click to start them, they're there. Then I come into work where my PC is still using XP and when I starting Word or Firefox or whatever, I have to sit and wait 5-10 seconds while XP loads the app. Drive me nuts.
        • DarknessGP, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1You do know that if your OS doesn't use the resource in some way then that game can't use it. The OS runs on top of the hardware and apps run on top of the OS... fail.
    • JerzyBricklayr, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1ORLY???
    • N00F, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2Vista hogs more resources than XP. Likewise, XP hogs more resources than 2K. Windows 2000 was one of the best, until software makers locked out 2K and prevented things from running on 2K.
    • holycow83, on 05/12/2008, -3/+1tell me about it dude, and plus there really isn't that much more you're getting with vista, for it to take up so much resources. the only way u can get the most out of a vista run pc is if u get a state of the art machine with best processor, bus-speed etc. that your pocket can afford, i'd recommend spending at least 1500 on a DESKTOP not a LAPTOP[thats a different story]
  • korvan504521, on 05/12/2008, -15/+66I got burned with 64 bit windows xp. I'm going to be a late late adapter for vista. Crysis will still be just as fun in two years, and it'll probably look better on the machine I'll have then as well.
    • Sk8SkaNJ, on 05/12/2008, -7/+31adapter?
      • natelove, on 05/12/2008, -12/+5what? he meant to say adopter, are you retarded? did you not understand what he meant?
      • lelux, on 05/12/2008, -0/+12I'd like a DirectX 10 adapter for XP
    • sockpuppets, on 05/12/2008, -11/+21I'm running 64bit vista and I'm an avid gamer. I'm very happy with my system. =)
      • brettmurf, on 05/12/2008, -5/+4I tried 64 bit vista once again, and my framerates all went to *****. Made my source engine games go at like half the framerate of XP.
        • HolyChimp, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3I wonder how long ago people tried Vista and got insane performance reductions, because if it was longer than 12 months I'd say give it another go. nVidias drivers, while not perfect, have got lots better, and I assume ATIs would be the same.
      • jrbrewin, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1i think anyone that wants to say that vista is crappy and slow compared to xp should read - http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2304029 ... ... (this is linked in to the page before the actual benchmarks, but not the first page of the article) or use http://digg.com/microsoft/Gaming_Performance_Windo ... instead.
    • ic4rus, on 05/12/2008, -14/+10crysis and fun in that same sentence? they should ake a lesson from the valve playbook. big shiny graphics and bottom of the barrel gameplay a great game they do not make. well, maybe for the console tards.
      • bagboyrebel, on 05/12/2008, -3/+7please tell me what was wrong with Crysis. It may not have been game of the year material, but it was still a really good game.
        • CarzorStelatis, on 05/12/2008, -0/+9It was designed as a benchmarking suite/engine sales ad rather than a game
        • ic4rus, on 05/12/2008, -0/+0amen to that.

          good as an adjective has no real meaning. I said fun.
    • crownedgriffin, on 05/12/2008, -0/+16I'm running XP x64 with no problems. If I didn't have a 64-bit dual core, I'd still be running 2000 Pro. Super stable and uses almost no system resources.
      • wolferz, on 05/12/2008, -17/+7Calling 2000 pro stable is like calling a ship with holes in it's hull and a raging oil fire on it's deck seaworthy. You just got lucky enough to have the right hardware. If you didn't you would get to experience the fun that is the half assed drivers hardware manufactures bothered themselves to make for the nitch market that actually adopted 2k pro.
        • netdroid9, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3The drivers for XP work on 2000, you know.
        • crownedgriffin, on 05/12/2008, -0/+6I never had any major problem with 2000 or XP (32-bit or 64-bit) on any hardware. Perhaps you are thinking of ME.
        • bigsteve, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Q: How many paint chips do you have to eat to call Win 2000 Pro an unstable nitch market OS?
          A: Ask wolferz.

          How about 95% of business desktop computing from 2000 til 2003? I have clients who still very happily and successfully use 2000 Pro on the desktop level. Don't fix what's not broken...
        • AngelBunny, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3windows 2000 is the most stable operating system MS has ever made. XP is just 2000 + a theme to make it look better which uses more resources.
          you're probably mistaking windows 2000 with ME. windows ME is the least stable operating system MS ever made.
        • wolferz, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1@you guys

          And with the advent of XP 2k was abandoned by most hardware manufacturers. And no not all xp drivers work on 2k.. especially considering the differences in how they handle wifi. Those that do are not always stable on 2k and making them stable on 2k is rarely a priority. Finally no 2k was not widely adopted. Less than half of office computers ran 2k... as the most economical machines of the time ran ME. It's failure to be widely adopted and the confusion between me and 2k that has been aluded to were primary reasons many hardware devs droped support for 2k all together.

          Finaly, no Xp is the most stable Windows os so far... more specifically Windows XP Sp2.

          I have been working in computers since 1998. The majority of blue screen errors I have seen have been from windows 2k computers DESPITE XP's 5 year run. In fact it amounted to roughly half of all problems I ran into with windows 2k computers. The simplest solution was often a driver upgrade... or down grade... assuming the computer could be booted into safe mode without it blue screening again.
      • schoate09, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4My feelings exactly. Xp and 2000 are lean, stable and take up far less resources than Vista, the right amount for an operating system.
      • BuddyDoQ, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2I'm in the same boat as you are. I used 2000 for years and years, and the only reason I switched to XP x64 was sheer curiosity over the whole 64bit enhancements when I upgraded my hardware. Needless to say it wasn't a revolution, but the OS is like a rock, is future proof for the next 2-3 years, and everything flies. There are exactly zero reasons to upgrade at this time.
      • fuzzynyanko, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Weird. I'm using Windows XP x64 without too many problems. The most problematic programs have been the ones that used 16-bit .dll files and things that were compiled with like Visual Basic 5.0. Some games installers don't like x64, but the game itself runs fine. I hardly have any problems with software designed starting from Windows 2000, and the OS is pretty stable.

        x64 binaries do have a slight edge because of the guaranteed SSE2 instruction support, and Microsoft uses SSE2 for floating-point by default on x64
      • korvan504521, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1My issues with x64 were more computability issues with various games and lack of updated drivers for certain hardware. Performance wise its fine, the problem is more in the fact that game companies ignored it.
    • Rekoil, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2Crysis runs on Windows XP too by the way.
    • BearinG, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3What's wrong with Win XP 64 bit ? I've got a 64 bit dual core processor but was too lazy to reinstall Windows right away, and i was missing a driver when it first came out.. I wonder if i could install it over WinXP 32bit.. (i assume im just asking for trouble)

      Just wondering what's wrong with winxp 64..
      • driftwood07, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2nothing is wrong with xp64 unless you are willing to take some hits on drivers issues. myself, going from xp32 to xp64, i lost use of a tv tuner card and a wireless network adapter |: as far as you installing xp64 over an existing 32bit install, yea, you are asking for trouble. you need a fresh install.
  • jboi, on 05/12/2008, -66/+8U would be nuts to buy vista since its just an XP upgrade.
    When u get a new computer u get vista anyway.
    • estvir, on 05/12/2008, -16/+77What, Vista is an upgrade to the previous version of Windows? NO WAY!

      I guess you were yet-another-moron trying to say that "Vista is just XP with AERO LOLZ" yet somehow you managed to screw up even such a basic, moron comment. By the way, Vista isn't just XP with Aero, in fact, it's probably one of the biggest successors in Windows history -- changed codebase, new kernel, new audio/printer/networking stack, new driver model, new development style, new interface, new security model, new security features (UAC, Protected Mode, PatchGuard, etc), new I/O features (ReadyBoost, SuperFetch, etc), much improved/added, new installation method, new installation base, etc.

      Yeah, you guys are right, nothing new aside from Aero. Idiots.
      • mattyice11, on 05/12/2008, -25/+13None of those things are worth sacrificing frame rate.
        • valkyries, on 05/12/2008, -4/+18if your computer is full of virus that would hurt your frame rate a lot more then all those new features in vista
        • PueSi, on 05/12/2008, -3/+23If your only concern is gaming i agree but in my case i do a lot of things besides gaming, that's why i use Vista.
        • chazuk, on 05/12/2008, -7/+4I play games for fun, not framerates... Do you really need such a big ePenis? It doesn't impress the ladies at all.
        • Murdats, on 05/12/2008, -2/+5well thats good because I havent seen in any of my computers a hit to fps, infact go to a lan and ask all the people with vista if they have taken a hit.
      • whereiseljefe, on 05/12/2008, -2/+12Actually most of those features, changed codebase, new kernel, etc. were dropped before the Vista release.
        • dubloe7, on 05/12/2008, -2/+10i liked the part where they were like 'there are going to be 3 pillars of longhorn', and then they took one away due to time constraints, and then they took another one away due to time constraints, and then were left with a 1 legged stool, that leg being aero.
          if they kept anything at all it should have been winfs, I'm getting tired with the crappy performance of NTFS.
          • DarkShroud, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3WinFS is not a file system and will not replace NTFS.
        • estvir, on 05/12/2008, -8/+2No they weren't you moron.

          There wasn't a changed codebase, Longhorn was based on XP. ALL those things I listed ARE IN VISTA and many of them would not exist if MS didn't change development and their plans with 'Longhorn.'

          My goodness, you're incredibly stupid.
        • DarkShroud, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2Vista Pre SP-1 uses the Server 2003 code base.
          Vista Post SP-1 uses the Server 2008 code base & kernal.
          • estvir, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1No, Pre-SP1 it uses the kernel as well, all SP1 did was bring the code up to date with the extra work that had been done on Server 2008.
      • YekTehrooni, on 05/12/2008, -8/+7Vista's got a LOT of new (mostly useless) features that hog the processor, use up all the RAM, burn your HD and best of all spy on your activities with YOUR consent. Thanks, but no thanks! I used to be a windows user, but after "upgrading" to Vista, I decided to dump the whole ***** load down the toilettes of OS. I am a Linux man now, and have never been happier or more productive.
        • Murdats, on 05/12/2008, -2/+4wow, source? they are some pretty extreme and unique statements, or is it just you spouting some good old FUD?
      • robbh66, on 05/12/2008, -6/+5Do you masturbate to Vista at night?

        Sounds like it...
    • drex8, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3Are you commenting from your cell phone? What's with the im-mish lingo!
      You can not "has digg".
      • drex8, on 05/12/2008, -3/+0Correction: 'im-ish'
        Meh...nevermind, stupid comment anyway.
    • kublerross, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3and what about all the people who build their own computers?
      i sure as hell am not putting out 300 dollars for a minor upgrade, thats a weeks worth of gas!
    • dpcamp, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2I think the problem that everyone is having with Vista and failing to realize is that with every windows OS upgrade you usually need a faster system. ie: upgrading from windows98 to XP (I'm not counting ME, and 2000 wasn't meant for gaming at the time). You couldn't smoothly run XP on a machine that smoothly ran 98. Granted Vista is a little more demanding than it's predecessors, but i think the majority of people forgot that this happens with OS upgrades because Microsoft decided to wait 7 years to upgrade it's OS.
  • estvir, on 05/12/2008, -69/+377So many stupid comments in the article, for example, they make it sound like you need a $3000 upgrade to run Vista when in reality, most PCs sold within the last few years would run it fine and the ones before that would need a ~ $20 RAM upgrade.

    They make it sound as if the first DX10 games (Which aren't actually DX10 games, they're DX9 games with a few, tiny extras tacked on so the developers can claim DX10) are suppose to be all shock and awe -- guess what, developers don't magically move on instantly to the next big tech.

    Their only source is a Steam survey and they claim that 15% is 'roughly in line with the total consumer market' but when you look at other statistics which monitor a wider range of computers, Vista is much lower than 15% so this would indicate gamers (Who use Steam) are adopting Vista much faster. Hell, the Vista64 version is seemingly closer to the total consumer market percentage.

    But hey, Digg this stupid, inaccurate, ill thought out story up and than continue going on "LOL M$ASLSOL HAH" while thinking you're some smart, unique individual.. and than go stick with all those "M$" programs you use on your standard box you bought from Dell.
    • coheedcollapse, on 05/12/2008, -15/+40My girlfriend just built a cheap-ass computer in her IT class with in-board graphics, a 1.6ghz processor and 512 mb of ram and it runs Vista Ultimate fine. I had to see it to believe it, but it's true. It's quick to respond with no lag with the Vista Basic theme (no Aero). Of course she won't be gaming on it though.

      Of course we're going to upgrade her computer since RAM is so cheap, but as of now it runs fine.
      • B1663r, on 05/12/2008, -25/+11I just want to advise everyone.... Vista runs fine on a computer with 512Mb if you are not gonna run any applications beyond web browser and and e-mail. With the current cost of ram you need at least two gig of ram if you are gonna run any kind of serious applications like photoshop or vegas video.

        Also, on that computer you are gonna feel the pain of dig threads that are more than a few dozen comments long. But yeah, if you are casual web browsing and email, that computer will work fine.
        • chazuk, on 05/12/2008, -8/+19Are you trying to tell me that a pc which meets the minimum requirements for Vista Basic is not as fast as a PC running vista with more ram? You ***** genius!
          • B1663r, on 05/12/2008, -2/+16No, I'm trying to tell you, that if you are building a computer and you only have 512Mb of ram, and that is not gonna change... Go with XP.

            Yes, Vista will run on that computer he described. He will have a better experience with XP.

            Having said that, I get horrible eye strain everytime I have to work on an xp computer because AERO is soooooo nice and smooth.

            Im not a hater, just being honest.
          • BearinG, on 05/12/2008, -5/+2You know you can get a similar 2mb addon for XP that adds AERO type windows..
          • B1663r, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3Yeah, window blinds is buggy as hell... And it doesn't give windows pervasive font smoothing.
        • coheedcollapse, on 05/12/2008, -4/+11Funny that you should say that. Although Photoshop takes a bit long to load on the computer, it runs fine. See, my girlfriend and I are both photographers, so we work with the program pretty often.
          • B1663r, on 05/12/2008, -8/+3Ok, now minimize it and bring up this digg thread. Yeah, I though so, on my computer with 4gig it is just about instant, and that particular operation isn't really cpu bound.
          • MetalCharms, on 05/12/2008, -5/+5All he's saying is that it will run on a POS like that. Most computers sold in the last few years are MUCH better than that one. He's trying to illustrate the point that Vista can run on pretty much everything. He's not saying that it will run the biggest apps as well as a $2000 PC
          • B1663r, on 05/12/2008, -3/+6Dude, you called the computer his girlfriend built a "Piece of *****", I think your face is a POS.
        • SillyRabbits, on 05/12/2008, -3/+7Just about anything is snappy with a fresh install. Not that I'm doubting you. However, I'd like to see how fast it seems after installing 30-40 programs on it and putting it through 6 months of regular usage. After adding all the dlls to the registry and semi-malware that seems to always creep in over time, I'd like see if you still think it's viable. To me, that's the real test. (and by semi-malware, I mean things like realplayer, various perhepial drivers, iTunes, etc.)
          • estvir, on 05/12/2008, -3/+6With Vista, [some] things would increase in speed over time because of SuperFetch.
        • brettmurf, on 05/12/2008, -3/+4"With the current cost of ram you need at least two gig of ram if you are gonna run any kind of serious applications like photoshop or vegas video."
          Dang, thems are some super serious applications....
          • B1663r, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3Well, lets see, I acutally use those and in normal use, yeah, they consume (that is with work in them, not just having pir8te version just to show off to my friends that i am 3l33t!!!!) And Photoshop pretty consistently sits there consuming half a gig to a gig of ram. If i am doing anything at all really in Vegas video, it consumes every last bit of ram I throw at it.

            So really, you have managed to launch those application, you just haven't gotten to the part where you do anything more than trivial with them.

            OIC, you were just being an insulting prick.
      • lukas88, on 05/12/2008, -4/+22Can I marry your girlfriend? Also, will you ask her for me?
      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/12/2008, -3/+3That's true and many people try to pretend that isn't the norm.

        BUT - This is a gaming article and that computer sucks even as an XP gaming machine.
      • digmark, on 05/12/2008, -2/+5Dugg for "in-board" graphics.
    • jer2eydevil88, on 05/12/2008, -8/+20I built a computer for a friend at a total cost of $866, purchasing of all the parts was done at Microcenter and yes that price included tax! We got Vista x64 for it and it works great!!!
      • coheedcollapse, on 05/12/2008, -4/+9Yeah, the computer I'm running now was built completely off of newegg for $600 and I consider it a pretty formidable gaming rig. It's not going to run Crysis on ultra-high, but it will hold it's own with just about anything else. I dual-boot Vista and Ubuntu on it just fine. My favorite thing about it is the fact that I bought a huge case that has plenty of room for whatever upgrades I'll need in the future.
      • MessiR10, on 05/12/2008, -10/+4specs and pics or it dint happened
        • coheedcollapse, on 05/12/2008, -3/+6It's a AMD Athlon 1.6 ghz dual core overclocked to 2.23, 4 gigs of ram, NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GT, ASUS motherboard with On-board sound card, two 320 gig hard drives, a DL DVD read/write drive, and a Raidmax Smilodon case.

          Oddly, I have a picture of it that I posted on my blog a while ago: http://www.cityeyesphoto.com/blog/wp-content/uploa ...

          Like I said, it's not a gaming powerhouse, but it holds its own for a really reasonable price and has plenty of room for an upgrade.
        • sovietninja, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4Hey I had one of those Raidmax Smilodon cases too! However all my front leds burned out except the bottom one...

          Currently upgraded to a new Thermaltake Armor+ which feels like it weighs 50 lbs
          • coheedcollapse, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3I've been lucky so far, my case is still shiny and bright and it's almost a year old. That Thermaltake looks like a hell of a case.
        • Wartz, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3@ coheedcollapse : $600 for that? I hope you bought it more than a year ago. :
          • lifeinchains, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1WTF are you talking about, $600 is a perfectly normal price for that hardware. Its actually a good mid range computer.
          • coheedcollapse, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1I bought it last summer.
    • dubloe7, on 05/12/2008, -6/+25the computer I built in 2005 for ~$500 (free monitor) was capable of running vista and playing Crysis. its not a big deal guys, really.
      • dudefaceguyman, on 05/12/2008, -3/+7Pretty much the same for me. In 2005 I spent about that much for a Athlon 64 3000+, 1GB of ram, with an Asus A8V mobo stuck in AGP stone age. Some light upgrades over a couple years. Like a 7800GS 2 years agoish and another 1GB of ram right before I installed a copy of Vista Business I acquired from a friend which runs great by the way.

        As for games I can run Crysis on low smoothly at 1280x1024 and everything else on medium/high easy even today.
        • jordyhoyt, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3haha! wow sounds like you have almost the same setup as me, except i only have 1GB of ram and vista business still runs my stuff fine. i played through battle for middle earth 2, company of heroes, and battlefield 2142 on this machine just fine, with reasonably high settings too.
      • kublerross, on 05/12/2008, -9/+6yes if you call 1280x1024 (a horrific non proportional resolution on top of being so low) with no AA/AF and on med actually playing it than sure youre playing it.
        but alot of us are used to playing games at 1920x1200 or greater with maximum AA/AF. when your hardware is being pushed to the max you feel any small drop in performance.
        sorry all you vista lovers but performance in games IS slower. do a quick google search,
        it might not matter to you, but to many people it does.
        • estvir, on 05/12/2008, -1/+8Very few people would be used to playing games at 1920x1200. In fact, I doubt there are too many people with monitors that even support a resolution that high.
        • lifeinchains, on 05/12/2008, -0/+5Actually, I'd be willing to bet that there are far more gamers who use 1280x1024 than 1920x1200. Not everybody has top grade, bleeding edge hardware to play games on. In fact, most gamers most likely skate by on hardware that is 1-2 years old.
        • dig1x, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2You're FUD is out of date.

          http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2303830 ...
      • BearinG, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2The thing is.. people keep saying "yeah well Vista works fine".. of course its gonna "work fine".. but if its losing performance compared to XP, then I'll stick with XP, not that difficult to understand..Vista "works fine" on my computer too ..
    • indigit4l, on 05/12/2008, -8/+8Vista x64... 1100 bucks for a basic computer using the hard drives and optical drives outta my last one. It flies.
      • wolferz, on 05/12/2008, -5/+6I built one for a client recently for 650 bux. Runs vista and also flies. Dual Core 2.4 with 2 gigs of ram and mirror raid.
      • schoate09, on 05/12/2008, -6/+8No operating system should require $1100 to "fly". Xp could "fly" on machines that were $299 four years ago.
        • indigit4l, on 05/12/2008, -3/+4You must be new to computers
        • lifeinchains, on 05/12/2008, -3/+5If you recall (or maybe you don't, so I'll refresh your memory), when it was released, XP required a higher level of hardware to run than the OS it replaced, Win 98SE. That situation is shockingly similar to the one people are bitching about now. It is funny how most people forget this fact.
          • schoate09, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Xp offered significantly more stability over Win98SE. I don't find anything that compelling about Vista to justify new hardware. I 've always understood the co-operative multitasking solid NT kernel always (since NT4) required more hardware, and I was willing to make the move, knowing the stability I encountered when using NT4.
        • thawkth, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4I distinctly remember entire forums full of "Win2k FTW! It does everything XP does, plus it's faster and doesn't look like the fischer price operating system!"

          Have people forgotten? Or is it maybe just younger folk making the same complaints my generation did?

          Maybe MS should learn to release an operating stystem a bit more frequently, so the current doesn't become so entrenched?
        • dig1x, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Lifeinchains: "Or is it maybe just younger folk"

          XP was released 7 years ago. Thats a lot of time if your under 20.

          • lifeinchains, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Either way, its the same exact arguments applied to the new OS generation. Wait a few years and Vista will be as commonplace as XP is now.

            Until of course Windows 7 comes out and the process begins anew.
    • synergye, on 05/12/2008, -13/+29when will people learn that writing "MS" like "M$" doesn't make you leet or cool?
      • Kyan, on 05/12/2008, -8/+24But writing "elite" as "leet" does, huh!
      • aeoo, on 05/13/2008, -3/+1Has it occurred to you that people who write MS as M$ are not trying to sound "leet"[sic] or "cool"? People use the dollar sign to indicate greed and anti-social behaviors that MS constantly engages in, as a company. Why doesn't anyone write "$tarbucks" or "Macinto$h" or "A$u$"? Why is it mostly MS? That's because MS is the king of anti-social, phobic, paranoid, dictatorial behavior. Arguably Apple is quite ***** up in that regard, but even Apple didn't reach the level of MS-greed yet, hence lack of popularity for "Macinto$h" moniker.
    • aseriesoftubes, on 05/12/2008, -8/+13Since gamers are the only ones who have any reason apart from future proofing to upgrade I think the fact that only 15% have done so interesting. There are a lot of technical reports suggesting that the slow-down in gaming experienced when using Vista cancels out any current benefits of DirectX 10. Because of the bloated nature of the OS I think it is misleading to suggest that it would be a good idea to run it on a system more than a couple of years old even with a RAM upgrade. Bottom line is that as usual with Microsoft you will be punished for being an early adopter. I say this as someone who brought two news systems recently - a basic XP laptop for my girlfriend that runs like a dream and my pain in the arse gaming rig running Vista. Things will work themselves out in the next year or so no doubt but at the moment I wouldn't recommend Vista to anyone.
    • whereiseljefe, on 05/12/2008, -4/+16Thats exactly what the article said: Gamers adopt OS's faster, and considering only 15% of gamers have switched to vista, this is a bad sign (to paraphrase).
      • dig1x, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2For starters, Steam's own data actually said:

        Vista 64-bit: 2.64%
        Vista 32-bit: 14.94%

        So, uhm, that would be 17.58% actually.
    • Gizza, on 05/12/2008, -2/+10I have some mixed views on Vista. I got home premium x64 about a year ago at home on a comp with 2gb, 7900gt and the q6600 proc and it runs perfectly, no problems at all. I also put on my old comp which i set up as a media centre, it only has 1gb, but runs fine as far as using media centre is concerned. I couldn't understand all these complaints about Vista.

      Then I got a new comp at work because we needed to start developing for Vista because some clients were switching over. 2.33ghz dual core proc, 4gb and a Radeon X1050 (not a great card but supposedly Vista compatible). This comp runs agonizingly slow. I got a little bit better performance turning aero off, but for the most part it can't even play youtube videos without stuttering. Sometimes opening the start menu will max out both cpu cores and lock the computer up for 30 seconds. Now I don't know if this is because its a ***** comp, or its got something to do with Vista, all I do know that if people are getting this experience as opposed to my home experience, I can see why they would hate Vista.

      I'm getting a new much better vid card put in here later on in the week (so I can play TF2 with my boss during lunch, I love this job :D) so ill see if that improves overall experience at all.
      • brettmurf, on 05/12/2008, -6/+3Just dual boot into XP. Honestly, your framerate will go up immensely in TF2. Although, maybe ATI cards don't take as much of a hit as either my 7600GT or my roommates 9600GT.
      • BearinG, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1We still use Win2k here at work.. they are just starting with XP now ;)
      • gamingspartan, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1LOL we are still using 98 for making checks HAHA
    • jpaolini, on 05/12/2008, -8/+4Couldn't agree more with estvir - story buried.
    • BradHAWK, on 05/12/2008, -4/+9My only Experience with Vista was just playing around with it for awhile at Fry's. Seemed fast and pretty. Then I saw that I was on a dual Athlon with 3GB, so I went tried a unit with a 1.8GHz Celeron - on this one the graphics were duller (eg, window borders were opaque - I assume because "Aero" was off?). I could watch new windows drawing - the sluggishness would drive me crazy*, and this was on a brand-new computer with nothing running but the OS.

      I think on a very fast computer I would prefer Vista, on a slow one I'd prefer XP, and I don't like XP much.

      *As it often does on loaded XP running on under 2GHz.
      • estvir, on 05/12/2008, -7/+3Just because it's 'new' doesn't mean it's fast, 1.8 is incredibly slow and I'm surprised they still exist (Outside of CPUs used in laptops) and it's a CELERON, Intel's secret joke. :P

        Aero was still turned on, it was just on a less fancy setting so you were right.
      • wolferz, on 05/12/2008, -6/+5a 1.8 Celeron? That's 6 year old hardware! And they were passing this off as new hard ware?

        I heard the stories about frys but that's just ***** up.
        • Nekiruhs, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2My laptop has a 1.4 GHz processor, laptops just lag behind in processors period, unless you buy a gaming laptop.
        • wolferz, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1@nekiruhs

          1.4ghz CELERON or a 1.4ghz CENTRINO? Cause that's two totally different processors. A centrino running at 1.4ghz is comparative to a P4 Extreme Edition running at 2.4ghz. A 1.4 Celeron is equivalent to a 1.2 P4

          The 1.4 Celeron is freaking ANCIENT. I might be mistaken (it's been a while) but that's not even a 478 socket processor... That's one of those old Rambus based machines. My old machine was a 3.0ghz P4 EE... and I bought it in 2005.
      • schoate09, on 05/12/2008, -3/+3A 1.8 GHz celeron with 512MB RAM and even Intel Integrated graphics should be enough for many casual web/mail/im people. The fact that the Vista operating system chokes on that shows it's bloat.
        • estvir, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1No, it shows it's not designed for a computer that was commonplace A DECADE AGO.
          • BradHAWK, on 05/13/2008, -0/+0Regardless how cutting edge it's not, It seems to me that a computer operating at 1.8GHz should be able to open a window without hesitation.
    • ArthurSucks, on 05/12/2008, -3/+10I've never owned anything from Dell, but come on... they're not THAT bad.
      • jimmyt1988, on 05/12/2008, -7/+2LMFAO
      • HigherLogic, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4They're really not, especially for what you get. Look, I'd prefer to build my own computer any day of the week, used to all the time when I was younger. Now, don't really care so much for it, going to Frys or whatever, getting each component and spending a lot of money. Instead, I spent $399 on a computer from Dell and really can't complain. Came with a dualcore Intel 1.8GHz CPU, 2GB RAM, 250GB disk space, DVD-RW, a 19" widescreen monitor (which is normally about $180-200), wireless keyboard and mouse, and Vista (Home Edition though). No complaints, runs absolutely fine as well and was cheap as hell (considering what it would have cost to buy all of that separate).
      • sykotik, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4When you buy Dell (or any manufacturer) you're in effect buying a warranty. "Security" basically. So, in that sense, they're not that bad. Also I worked there 5 years, it's the only mainstream PC company that I know of that will allow you to pop open the chassis and swap stuff in and out without voiding the warranty. Beyond that, a computer is a computer is a computer.
    • wolferz, on 05/12/2008, -6/+3You are my hero! *worship*
    • knight666, on 05/12/2008, -4/+6I have built every single computer (well, except for laptops) I've owned. Right now I'm running XP, but that's only because I need Game Maker and Flash CS3 Pro for a stupid project.
      Normally I run Ubuntu, and I think I will simply skip Vista and wait for Windows 7.
    • digitallysick, on 05/12/2008, -5/+3Wow, someone ***** off the #1 fanboy
    • LZeppelinJ0, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4"continue going on "LOL M$ASLSOL HAH" while thinking you're some smart, unique individual"

      dugg just for this
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/12/2008, -7/+5If you want to use DirectX10 (most gamers probably do) then you need to use Vista.
      • Wesside, on 05/12/2008, -3/+7if "Most" wanted it, more than 15% of us would have switched over.
        • MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3That's a pretty stupid thing to say.

          There's a few economic and financial issues also at play. DX10 Video cards are still expensive, you need a copy of windows Vista (expensive unless you advocate piracy as a solution for the entire market)

          Also, it's new the market is still small, so there are few games supporting DX10, and developers design games with marketshare in mind. It's still too early for DX10 only titles to be released and turn a profit.
        • dig1x, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3Actually, according to steam, its over 17%...
      • clubby, on 05/12/2008, -3/+4Most gamers that tried it realized that it's about 1% prettier and 30% slower.
    • Rodalli, on 05/12/2008, -6/+9You missed the point entirely. The same games, running at the same settings, on the same hardware still run smoother and more efficiently on XP than on Vista. Usually it would be the other way around; the new OS should be the faster of the two. Especially considering XP now has more service packs and hotfixes than you can shake a stick at. I like Microsoft as much as the next PC guy, but there's a time when you need to put down the Kool-Aid and join the rest of the us in reality. We don't skip an entire generation of Windows OS's just for the ***** and giggles. We had a reason with ME and we have a reason with Vista.
      • Chunken, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4The newer OS never runs faster. XP did not run faster than 98/me/2k until you upgraded your computer. Just like with Vista.
      • sykotik, on 05/12/2008, -2/+1ME ran fine, never had an issue. You can't put an OS on a computer AS IS and expect to get every ounce of performance out of it... it just doesn't work that way.
      • dig1x, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2"The same games, running at the same settings, on the same hardware still run smoother and more efficiently on XP than on Vista" == falsehood.

        Check it out: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2303830 ...
    • fuzzynyanko, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1Vista didn't run too badly on my machine. I just had everything installed on XP x64 and was too lazy to transition everything over
    • MendedSlinky, on 05/12/2008, -8/+4I run Linux.
    • sykotik, on 05/12/2008, -3/+4Being a gamer, and also an accomplished computer technician, I have to agree with estvir. It's not really that bad, and can be made SO much better by tweaking it just like one tweaked XP. I must admit some disappointment with "hardcore gamers" slamming Vista out of the box. I don't understand the mentality. As soon as I installed XP, I turned off services that were not needed, removed the unneeded networking components in the stack that would cause overhead, removed unneeded "features," tweaked the registry, etc. You can do the very same thing with Vista. Do you REALLY need "ohmuhgodshiny" desktop effects, and the sidebar? Really? No, you don't. Suck it up, learn something about operating systems, and tweak the living hell out of it. In the end, done correctly, you won't even need firewall or antivirus software. Hell I haven't run that stuff in years and years.
      Come on guys, you are hardcore gamers, be hardcore OS tweakers, it's a small step forward.
      • aeoo, on 05/13/2008, -2/+4That's be nice, but aero is touted as one of THE major benefits of the OS. It's kinda funny to turn off one of the major reasons there was an upgrade in the first place in order to enjoy that upgrade, don't you think? It's Microsoft's own fault for over-hyping the system. They raised expectations sky high with years of relentless hype, and now when the users are sorely disappointed they have no one but themselves to blame.
        • estvir, on 05/13/2008, -1/+2If you turn it 'off' all you're really turning off is some transparency on the Task Bar and Window Borders. You still get all the other benefits of Aero.
        • sykotik, on 05/13/2008, -1/+1Yeah, once again, if that's why you bought the OS, for shiny stuff and transparency, sorry to hear that.
  • HOTM, on 05/12/2008, -16/+76How many of these articles have been made since vista has came out.

    Pretty damn sure we get the point by now.
    • mark076h, on 05/12/2008, -8/+35we will probably keep getting articles like this for a another year or two until most people are forced to upgrade and install Vista and find out it is fine and works great on new hardware
      • elitexero, on 05/12/2008, -14/+9It's not fine and it doesn't work great on new hardware. I loved vista, I really did, but it got to the point where nothing would work as well as it did in XP so I had to go back.
      • dubloe7, on 05/12/2008, -5/+9works great on new hardware, god forbid you want to use a piece of hardware that came out before 2007 though. vista has all the old drawbacks of microsoft wanting to be compatible with legacy equipment, except that it doesn't actually have any of the compatibility with legacy equipment.
        • PueSi, on 05/12/2008, -3/+13That's a problem of the hardware manufacturers, they're the ones who should release the drivers.
          The same holds true for Linux.
          • dubloe7, on 05/12/2008, -4/+4it doesn't matter whose fault it is, its still a problem that people who would like to use their hardware with vista face.
          • PueSi, on 05/12/2008, -3/+3Well i do agree with you on that but most users end up upgrading the OS when they buy a new computer so, for them that's not an issue.
          • dubloe7, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4there are also plenty of people who upgrade just one or a few components at a time, the only thing thats left of the computer I'm using right now from when I built it is the case and the floppy drive (lol, f6 for sata drivers)
          • unknownsoldierX, on 05/12/2008, -3/+3My system from 2003 runs Vista just fine. P4 2.8 with 2GB of PC3200 and a 6600GT runs any game I throw at it.
        • estvir, on 05/12/2008, -6/+9Before 2007? Are you retarded or do you enjoy blatantly lying on the Internet?
          • dubloe7, on 05/12/2008, -4/+4because people make drivers for operating systems that aren't released yet?
          • dig1x, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2hey, dubloe7, please, stop talking about things you clearly know nothing about.

            Do _you_ think Microsoft doesnt provide specifications and pre-release versions of a completely new OS to its partners before they release it to retail?

        • DarkShroud, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2My Gateway PC from 2005 runs Vista Ultimate just fine. Don't buy obscure brand hardware and you won't have a problem when you upgrade.
      • DeadElephant, on 05/12/2008, -2/+1Yeah I have no complaints except WoW has a slightly slower framerate (by like, 10 maybe, but it still runs fine), every other game I play on Vista works fine. This is on my laptop, however. I'm sticking to Linux on my PC for the awesome of it.
    • drex8, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1@HOTM: Very true.
      Also didn't know that this site tech.yahoo.com even existed. And they have blogs which people take the time to read.
    • anillop, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3Oh good another Vista sucks article something original. Way to beat a dead horse.
    • skeletorcares, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4I get the inaccurate propaganda, dugg up by jealous mactards, that can't even game at the proposed '*****' vista level, even if they wanted. ---Yeah. I run bioshock at max res highest detail @80fps on a 1500 dollar computer w/ vista. So buried as inaccurate.
    • ligyron, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4I ignore all these articles. I've been using Vista for 5 months now, and I do programming and gaming, and I haven't a complaint yet. Definitely prefer it over Windows 2000 Professional which I've been using for the past 6 years
  • l0k0, on 05/12/2008, -15/+131Wrong, Crysis does not benefit much at all from Direct X 10. Very few effects in the game were actually exclusive to Direct X 10. Many of the effects that made Very High noticably better than High were tech that has been rendered in DX9 for ages, such as parrallax mapping and color grading. This was an artificial limitation by Crytek to prevent XP users from accessing these goodies via the in game options menu. However, with a simple .cfg file, you can force it easily and get better performance to boot (compared to Vista).

    See here:
    http://www.tweakguides.com/images/Crysis_21a.jpg
    http://www.tweakguides.com/images/Crysis_21b.jpg

    With that said, DX10 is a fabulous api, and Crysis is a great game, but Direct X 10 simply has not yet been used to the point where you get a significant difference--yet. However, in another year or two, I'm sure that will change.
    • D14BL0, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4Direct links to images don't seem to work. Copy the link, go to the main site, and paste it back into the address bar again for a quick referrer.
    • dtfinch, on 05/12/2008, -1/+25In Firefox, I just drag the links to the tab bar to get around the hotlink blocking.
      • infinitiesedge, on 05/12/2008, -1/+8Cheers. I didn't know about that.
      • Kyan, on 05/12/2008, -2/+4Works in Safari, too.
      • vorbalhorde, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1Opera method: copy link, ctrl+t, ctrl+b (paste and go).
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/12/2008, -2/+5That's not true.
      The new shader model is capable of effects that weren't available before, and is new to DirectX 10.

      BUT - As always the new effects can be simulated with less accuracy, detail, or efficiency using existing Shader models.
      There are only very few exceptions to this rule.

      Some effects render faster using the new model, instead of just looking better.