What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
The camera starts rolling on Best Buy holiday campaign. view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - A behind the scenes look at one employee's singing debut.
161 Comments
- illynova, on 10/12/2007, -12/+127Anytime ANYBODY promises more than a 100% increase in speed from the previous generation to the next it makes me instantly suspicious. Very suspicious.
- chaosroach, on 10/12/2007, -8/+94Vista's level of pirateabilitihood will dictate it's popularity.
You can quote me for truthiness. - foxhoundadmin, on 10/12/2007, -19/+75"I am also skeptical. Where is my skeptical hat."
right next to bill gates' 640k of ram. - lukas88, on 10/12/2007, -14/+57I am also skeptical. Where is my skeptical hat.
- Tux42, on 10/12/2007, -7/+37Don't count on it! I know people who use Windows 98. I believe one of my co-workers is learning to use a computer with Windows 3.1! So I do NOT think that XP will be extinct any time soon despite the wishes of Microsoft.
- markob, on 10/12/2007, -5/+34Er, no, that's just the GUI, games will still use graphical driver's opengl library.
- n8to, on 10/12/2007, -2/+31Seriously, that is a stupid comment. There is no way XP will be extinct 2 years from now. I routinely go into offices where they are running Win 98 on desktops. I also still see Win 2000 networks all the time.
I think the transition to Vista is going to be sloooooooow, especially if it means we all have to buy a new computer. - Handcannons, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27You won't need a $4000 machine to run Vista. I ran it on a AMD 64 3000+ system I put together for $350. It only had a GeForce 5200 video card, and the UI felt slower than XP on the same box, but WoW ran as well as on XP.
- EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+26Microsoft has a lot of...um, questionable business practices, but this is really just another example of how they can't win. If they don't make features backwards compatible everybody complains that they're trying to force people to upgrade. If they DO make features backwards compatible people complain there's no reason to upgrade. As somebody above said if they focus on bells and whistles people complain they're not focusing on security and stability. When they do focus on those things people complain they're not offering any new features. When they don't include more software people complain they're not providing as much as Apple with say iLife. When they do people complain that they're abusing their monopoly power to put other companies out of business. If they try too many new things people complain that they're breaking backwards compatibility and the learning curve is too steep. If they don't people blame them for not being innovative.
Everybody complains that Microsoft is not doing what they think MS ought to do to become a better OS, but nobody seems to agree on what that is. It's a huge problem when you have to try and be everything to everybody. 8,000 different kinds of users and a billion different hardware configurations. It's no wonder Windows suffers from multiple personality disorder. - furtwan1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20For all the uninformed diggers out there...opengl will not be affected by vista. That is just FUD. Quit spreading it. I'm running Vista right now and I have quake 2 (and opengl game) running as I post this.
I dont know how they can claim 8 times the speed without actually having DX10 hardware yet, but I do know that the new driver system and the way "states" are handled in DX10 it should give a large speed boost. Probably not 8x, but maybe 2x. Either way I'll take it!
Of course DX9 will still work (hell, the window manager is based on it). - breakneckridge, on 10/12/2007, -13/+31Vista will also come with a new shell system! Oh wait...
Vista will also come with a new storage system! Oh wait...
Vista will also come with six to eight times the graphics performance! Hmm? - mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -7/+23six to eight times? i'll assume then that directX 10.0 will have a new feature that automagically calls in dozens of microsoft troll slaves to your house to upgrade your video card while you're not looking.
- killerofkiller, on 10/12/2007, -6/+22i think im going to report you to steven colbert for not quoting him while using his word..
- macewan, on 10/12/2007, -10/+23I'm always suspicious of comments from Bill & Ballmer. A healthy dose of skepticism of big business and government isn't a terrible thing.
- thirdtenor, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19Absolutely, and personally I hope its locked down like Fort Knox.
- fgsfds, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14No OpenGL games? So the Doom3 engine doesn't exist?
- supdawg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11all new games that people actually play use dx 9
- variaas, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11There is no way that XP will be dead in 2 year. Companies tend to wait until the first service pack is released before they even consider migrating their desktops, so you probably won't see the businesses moving to vista for atleast a year. And when they do start, don't expect that it to be a mass herd but rather a handful of companies, and then in the next two years you'll see more and more.
- ditoa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10WinFS was never an independant file system (like NTFS). It was/is a service that sits on top of the file system which indexes content in an SQL like database. This allows for more powerful searching, relational links between files, etc. It can and will be applied via an update to the operating system, be it via a service pack or seperate component installation (similar to the .net framework).
Monad (the new shell) will also be deployed in a similar way when it is complete.
Monad is the only reason, providing its implementation is as good as its spec sheets, I will upgrade to Vista. I am very happy with XP and unless I *have* to upgrade for another reason I will wait until Monad is out. I do not have much faith in MS making Vista much more secure than XP, only time will tell once it hits RTM. - lotrfan7007, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9DirectX 10 supports the new video driver model that windows vista uses....it would be extremely difficult for them to backport it to XP.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"Er, no, that's just the GUI, games will still use graphical driver's opengl library."
Microsoft hasn't provided the information to graphics companies to allow them to interoperate with the accelerated desktop. They're purposely trying to cripple OpenGL, and Windows users will, as usual, play right into Microsoft's hands. Microsoft wants every developer in the world to use DirectX, because that ties them to Windows. - explodebear, on 10/12/2007, -16/+24Not to mention Vista will absolutely screw all opengl games by implementing opengl through directx = horribly cutting speed.
- Handcannons, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8********
yep, run Vista on that machine my friend, but no games for you.
********
Have a problem with reading comprehension? beta versions of Vista ALREADY play games fine on that machine. It doesn't get 100 fps, but it didn't cost several thousand dollars either. Regardless of what the MS haters want people to belive Vista isn't going to require a mamoth hardware upgrade to run. - ditoa, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Technically DX10 probably could work on XP. People seem to think that DX and Windows are deeply integrated however that isn't as true as everyone thinks. What MS decided to do was create DX10 for just Vista. I can understand this as it makes it much easier to support one system rather than two (although XP and Vista are very similar internally, there are enough differences to make it a lot of work to support both systems).
Also Microsoft do aim to force people to upgrade however there is only so much they can do. Windows 98 is totally unsupported. Windows 2000 is only supported from a security patch point of view. For businesses removing support normally means they are forced to upgrade, smaller businesses and home users are obviously much more flexible however larger businesses tend not to play the support yourself game. I am not saying large businesses do not still run unsupported clients as they do, I work for for a large organization (60,000+ employees) and we still have some 3.1 and 95 systems around for legacy applications/testing. However our primary production systems are XP clients and we are currently working on migrating over 200,000 servers from 2000 to 2003. Why? Because 2000 is out of its standard support cycle and thus is only supported for security updates, this grace period is designed to allow organisations to continue using an unsupported system while planning their migration to the next generation platform.
What you need to remember is MS need a constant revenue stream, to achieve this they continualy bring out new versions of software and kill off old versions so that customers upgrade. Of course customers can choose not to upgrade however doing so puts yourself in a very dangerous position as the tools you are using to run your business are not supported so if they have a problem you are SOL. - superalamar, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15they are only promising an 800% increase...sounds likely to me.....wait no it doesn't.
- BassCadet, on 10/12/2007, -12/+19GPU's have been shouting through a copper wire and styrofoam cup to the CPU since DX3.
Now with DX10 there is a much stronger and less cobbled-together system integration. Of course there are going to be monumental performance gains.
The question is, will this performance jump be enough to save PC gaming? - furtwan1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8just to clarify my previous post...I'm running a Vista beta, not the final version obviously, but I dont think this changes my claim that opengl still works.
- matts0344, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Vista was running just fine a P4 1.8 GHz with a Radeon 9600. Not exactly an expensive system.
- Ryosen, on 10/12/2007, -19/+25This is a crock of sh|t. There is absolutely no reason why DirectX 10 cannot be released for XP. If they don't release it for XP, then it is clearly because they want to force people to upgrade unneccessarily. It's time to break the DirectX monopoly.
- gamekid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6News companies are news companies. Show them enough money and a believable-enough press release and they'll take it as gospel.
Hey, it works for the Bush Obliteration thanks to Fox News. - c0uchm0nster, on 10/12/2007, -15/+21It's sad. People spend 5 years bitching about bad security (I'm guessing you're one of them considering your reference of OSX), and then when a new OS that was rewritten from the ground up to focus on security and stability comes out you can't stop bitching about how there aren't any new features. If the missing shell and filesystem are such a big deal why do you feel the need to exaggerate things?
I guess I shouldn't be so hard on you, I mean it must be tough having Microsoft as a personal enemy - they don't even know you exist. - aaronm67, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7The hardware required for Vista isn't much more then XP. By default, some of the more advanced UI graphics will be turned off if your hardware is slower.
I was running Vista on a 1.6ghz pentium M w/ integrated graphics, it felt much faster then XP, particularly when using Media Center or Media Player. - Dmner, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8But then again without the API the hardware does crap. A computer relys on both the hardware and its APIs otherwise it can do crap
- ra3ndy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Sweet! Now all of our games can cost even MORE to develop! Man, I hope they pass the extra cost onto the consumer...cuz, dude, the only thing keeping me from gaming more is the fact that i can still afford to leave the house once in a while! A serious hassle fer sure.
And oh, man, if they can make the games even LESS fun?! How awesome would that be??! - matts0344, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Actually Microsoft is even planning to even backport WinFS to XP eventually so just because it won't be with Vista initially doesn't mean it won't eventually be available.
WinFS is not a whole new physical file system, its built on top of NTFS - saggygrandma, on 10/12/2007, -19/+24Look at the layout, this is just a big advertisement paid for by Microsoft....
- furtwan1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I think you're right that DX10 games will come out quickly. Flight Sim X for Vista is probably going to come out near Vista launch and it will support DX10. The REAL question is how long it will take nVidia/ATI to make _good_ DX10 cards. The first cards of each new architecture tend to suck as I recall, but within a year they always seem to fix the problems and pump out nice hardware.
- Hydroxyl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Hah, with that six months to a year time period, I'll have time to save up for a graphics card that even supports DX 10.
- alexandreracine, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7yep, run Vista on that machine my friend, but no games for you.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7"In other news, computers and graphics cards running Vista and DirectX 10 will have to be 20 times more powerful than those capable of running Xpee and DirectX 9."
- rnelsonee, on 10/12/2007, -10/+15re: tackle's comment...
Updating the file system on an OS involves a rewrite of the OS - it's not something you can roll into a service pack. It was one of Vista's biggest features, and it's not part of it anymore. Vista only has one major component different than XP - prettier graphics. And it's still not as nice as OS X. I can't believe people actually want Vista - it's nowhere near the OS it was supposed to be, and it's certainly a failure in terms of the feature set - they've had 5 years to add this new stuff, and they couldn't pull it off. - puzzud, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13Sounds pretty much what DirectX originally claimed to do. It's nothing that DirectX 10 and Vista is gonna do better. Quite frankly, I got tired of the changes Microsoft made to the DirectX API every 6 months to a year. Just use SDL/OpenGL/OpenAL
- jasonvw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This just seems like another sad attempt for Microsoft to force people to switch. I don't want to switch, but I really don't mind that much, I have pirated every version of Windows since 95, and I see no reason to stop at XP.
- LeegleechN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I'm surprised Gamespot claimed this. It's true that communication between GC and CPU is ineffecient, but fixing that is _not_ going to give you the insane gains in performance they claim.
- elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -17/+21An 800% increase would be NINE times the power. They're offering a 500-700% increase.
- Chozabu, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10Percentage increase can be seen as
value=(value/100*percentage increase)
or
value=value+(value/100*percentage increase)
its the phrase "percentage increase" that causes confusion - because of this i tihnk its the second one and elnerdo is right
it would be nice if people said "performance will be 800% of current", which is clearly 8x
anyways, i tinhk this is mostly MS trying to take credit for new hardware (which they may have had a little input in the design of though... article could be more informative) - infra172, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The point is that Vista removes a lot of backwords compatibility speeding up the system.
- ReallyPissedOff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5A disturbing trend is the proliferation of Windows-specific Hardware. In some cases these are specially designed to be operated by the Microsoft Windows operating system. This is generally done by removing the embedded processors of the hardware and shifting the work they do over to a Windows driver that is run by your computer's main CPU. Since the typical Windows user does not multi-process as intensively as a Linux user, the manufacturers hope that the Windows user simply won't notice the burden this hardware places on their CPU. However, any multi-processing operating system, even Windows 2000 or XP, suffers from degraded performance when peripheral manufacturers skimp on the embedded processing power of their hardware.Faster, sure... and the moon is made out of cheese.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5sounds like a figure dreamed up by marketing.
there is no way vista will give better performance, it's a resource hog - sark666, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Standard > Proprietary
-
Show 51 - 100 of 161 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is