What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.703 Comments
- estvir, on 05/12/2008, -69/+378So 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. - 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. - jggube, on 05/12/2008, -80/+205XP is great for gaming, Vista just seems like a resource hog (compared to XP, at least).
- OKeric, on 05/12/2008, -17/+123I just installed COD4 on Vista after always playing it on XP and it runs just fine on Vista.
- tendonut, on 05/12/2008, -11/+105In other news, black people can now ride in the front of the bus.
- 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. - mikephimikephi, on 05/12/2008, -11/+77The Yahoo-tech site mocks Microsoft.
In other news, dogs and cats refuse to play nice. - j4nj1m3n3z, on 05/12/2008, -44/+115When will people ever get over the fact that Vista is not that bad?
- 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. - inactive, 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. - lemur, on 05/12/2008, -7/+62PC gamers shun NT, sticking with 98
PC gamers shun 95, sticking with DOS
PC gamers shun... wait a minute! - 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.
- 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.
- Ocelot13, on 05/12/2008, -6/+50just wait till the next windows os comes out... everyone will br praising vista then.
- dafin0, on 05/12/2008, -17/+57its really a load of crap when you hear that hard core gamers/high end computer builders dont use vista. go to any site like nZone or SLI Zone and the only version of windows used is vista 64 bit.
- Megatog615, on 05/12/2008, -11/+48I don't know why you're being dugg down.
Microsoft deliberately gimped OpenGL in Vista. - Trixrox, on 05/12/2008, -10/+39Whatever, I game on Vista, it works fine, geez...this stuff is getting old. The Gaming crowd shunned XP when it came out too...
- crackah, on 05/12/2008, -14/+42Digging the vista love in the comments.
This article is crap. Vista works for me. - 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.
- herrshuster, on 05/12/2008, -13/+40I use vista to game on a $500 computer that runs everything but crysis on highest...I really actually like vista (x64)
- 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
- valkyries, on 05/12/2008, -8/+35been using vista for about a year now (x64 for a majority of the time) and have not had a single gaming problem. the only problem/bsod was because of itunes when i would try to add my music.(only cause the ipod was free)
I play all my games threw steam and have not had one problem. - estvir, on 05/12/2008, -11/+35I can't help but laugh at those who try attack Vista with the SAME argument every time...
- greevar, on 05/12/2008, -21/+46Vista has nothing that compels me to pay for a new operating system that offers anything I want that doesn't already exist in XP.
- Sk8SkaNJ, on 05/12/2008, -7/+31adapter?
- tendonut, on 05/12/2008, -4/+26No
- 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. - dtfinch, on 05/12/2008, -1/+25In Firefox, I just drag the links to the tab bar to get around the hotlink blocking.
- 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.
- lukas88, on 05/12/2008, -4/+22Can I marry your girlfriend? Also, will you ask her for me?
- sovietninja, on 05/12/2008, -5/+22Using a Steam as a source (pardon the pun) for their conclusions is retarded. As far as I know, CS 1.6 which is probably installed on more computers than TF2 or CSS or probably even HL2, doesn't require a graphics card to run. Doesn't even need Vista or DirectX 10 either. Do you know how many people out there play CS 1.6 on the crappiest computers? Tons. That's what makes CS 1.6 so great, but I wouldn't make the conclusion that every HARDCORE gamer/PC Enthusiast would upgrade to Vista in order to play Source or Steam based games. Which is what Yahoo is assuming. At the same time I wouldn't say everyone who plays on Steam is a hardcore/pc enthusiast which is another assumption Yahoo is making.
Maybe they should lurk around on guru3d and stuff and see how many people complain when Nvidia doesn't release a new beta driver for x64/x86 Vista with every XP based release. And what about all those people complaining to Creative about not having Vista drivers that weren't nerfed? Did everyone forget about all those Vista users? Don't typical hardcore PC enthusiast tend to buy $100 dollar plus sound cards? What Yahoo should have done if they really wanted to show hardcore gamer/PC ethusiasts do indeed used Vista is find all the pissed off gamers with Xi-fis and Audigys that don't have working EAX on Vista. Then you will have a better representation of the OS penetration of Vista among such gamers.
I personally like Vista, but really only use it for DX10 compatible games or Games for Windows Live like Shadowrun. I don't see the frame rate drops that everyone claims is due to overhead memory use, I have 4gbs of DDR2 1200 memory. Yet my brother's system has frame rate problems with 4gb of DDR2 800, which is probably due to Nvidia's shoddy implementation of SLI on the 8800 GT, since the same problem occurs in XP. - whatthefu, on 05/12/2008, -6/+23I played a number of computer games on XP and I continue to do so on Vista. I don't think "shunning" it makes much sense.
- ferrariman60, on 05/12/2008, -6/+23Yeah, Vista really isn't as bad as everyone makes it sound. I'm running 64 bit, and it's fine. People are just playing off Vista's reputation.
- 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.
- Sogui, on 05/12/2008, -12/+33Ok this argument might be weak but:
STEAM = Mostly Counterstrike
Counterstrike = Last-gen gaming - petethepanda, on 05/12/2008, -9/+26There's no reason for Joe Computer or even Joe PC Gamer to not have Vista at this point. Really. It is no better or worse than XP. In fact I've had far fewer crashes with Vista than I ever had with XP, and I keep my systems running kickass-well.
For me, I like the bit of eye candy, so I go Vista. Doesn't make a difference with my gaming habits. - 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. - 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.
- satanatnmtedu, on 05/12/2008, -12/+27Which means 85% are not using Vista. It is a shun.
- Joeyrev, on 05/12/2008, -3/+19There's really no need to upgrade your OS unless there is a specific function only available in that version. I think most people go by the theory of updating an OS when they get a new machine.
- g0nad, on 05/12/2008, -2/+17no.
- 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. - mark076h, on 05/12/2008, -9/+23Hardcore gamer here and i have been using Vista 64 since December without a single problem, and i have hit my system hard with every benchmark and all the latest games, including Crysis at 1900x1200 all settings and so far Vista64 is the best gaming experience i have ever had.
- inactive, 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. - 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
- Lunarbunny, on 05/12/2008, -2/+16No.
- Kyan, on 05/12/2008, -8/+24But writing "elite" as "leet" does, huh!
- inactive, 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.
- synergye, on 05/12/2008, -13/+29when will people learn that writing "MS" like "M$" doesn't make you leet or cool?
- mark076h, on 05/12/2008, -19/+33Vista kicks ass for games, what the hell does Yahoo Tech know anyways?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 703 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
