What is Digg?199 Comments
- skillfull, on 10/10/2007, -6/+55i must admit that i hope that service pack 1 will solve a lot of issue, otherwise its the end of Vista on my computers
- inactive, on 10/23/2007, -19/+62No, I can't speak for all the Vista bashers who may or may not actually have Vista on one of their own machines, But, I'll say that after playing a few decent FPS titles on my new laptop - Vista, 2 gigs of ram, dual core 2.2, nvidia 8600M GS... I'm convinced that most of the negative ***** about Vista is baseless hate.
- hutchy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20Direct link without the blogspam:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=797 - herrshuster, on 10/10/2007, -17/+32yep i've tried it on a laptop with 512 meg ram...works fine...stop bitching
- ahsteele, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15Not for gaming it won't.
- xGeneric, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Ah yes, because someone who pays money to "upgrade" their machine has absolutely no right to expect better performance. Those pesky dweebs and their solid logic!
BTW, I congratulate you for having a life(I assume you have one from your displeasure at those who don't). If you provide your address, I'll gladly send you a gold star and superman lunchbox ;) - keyboardduder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11However, OpenGL is awesomely capable of supporting all kinds of great technologies but many games are entertaining. Unfortunatley, DX is the standard. It will change soon enough though. ID wants to make RAGE for openGL too. Valve is looking for linux developers, that will be in openGL, and etc. It will have it's day real soon.
- LMN8R, on 10/19/2007, -3/+14He used an HD2600. That card is a piece of *****. Try a real video card like an 8800 and you'll see that the difference between XP and Vista is absolutely insignificant. Maybe XP is still better, but not noticeably at all.
- mustang460, on 10/10/2007, -5/+15im runing vista ultimate 2.4ghz c2d 8800gts 2gb ram and there are nothing out now i cant play with max settings playing smooth, the only problems ive had were third party driver support, but thats about all been cleared up, i dont think most vista bashers have actually used it
- MioTheGreat, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14Excuse me, what digg have you been reading?
The vast majority of this place is OSX and Linux zealots. - dynamicx, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Exactly why I've been waiting for SP1, taking a 30% performance hit from switching to a better OS is unacceptable.
- ZachSka87, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12Obviously this reviewer has not played Bioshock in DX10 mode...*orgasms*
- MioTheGreat, on 10/19/2007, -1/+9You're sort of right, but the real bad jump was from 98 to XP, or 98 to 2000.
2000 to XP in terms of performance was actually pretty good, given that Windows XP is virtually identical to XP, with regards to all the driver models.
98 to 2000/XP, however. That was horrendeous. Just like with Vista, there were completely new diver models to deal with (All for the best, of course. There's no denying that the change was needed, as it is now with XDDM to WDDM), and performance issues.
Though, frankly, I think Vista hit the point a few months ago where I honestly don't see any game issues unless I benchmark, and look for those extra 2 FPS that aren't really worth it anyway. - herrshuster, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10I don't play games...it's kind of a work laptop...not from work, for work
- klepton, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11It isn't all baseless, Vista does take more resources than XP. I love Vista, and it works great for me, but I also upgraded my hardware at the same time. I'm running just over double the power of my previous computer and probably have pretty close to the same performance as far as speed goes. Now, of course I think Vista is miles better than XP, so it was a good upgrade for me, but I can definitely see why people get upset when they upgrade the OS without upgrading the hardware, because on equal hardware, vista will lag behind XP in performance.
- kent1146, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Calling PC gaming dead because consoles are out is like calling muscle car tuning a dead hobby, because you can go out and buy a Totoya Camry. PC gaming isn't for the mass market. It never was, and I doubt that it ever will be.
Yes, there are easier ways to get your gaming fix. But PC gaming was never intended for that... it's a hobby for people that like to build and tweak PCs. They sink tremendous amounts of money and time into their hobby, and are rewarded by a slightly better gaming experience in certain situations. To some people, that is lunacy. To me, that extra little slice of gaming goodness is heaven. - MioTheGreat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Hard lock of the machine?
I've had games actually _crash the video driver_ in Vista, something that would have BSODed XP, and actually resume, only causing a moment of freezing in the game.
Specifically, Civ4: Beyond the Sword. Whenever that Aztec guy pops up for the first time in a game, the video driver crashes. But the fact that it's capable of just continuing on without even having to restart the game, let alone the computer, is just amazing. - sarusa, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Vista can't possibly run games faster than XP (except when the DX10 stuff allows you to move more effects to the card processing) because Vista disables hardware sound processing for DRM reasons. This is quite a substantial hit for a game with good 5.1 sound. YMMV if the game supports OpenAL, but in general...
- Eivo, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12I call *****.
- f4nt0m4s, on 10/23/2007, -4/+11Linux users carry such an anti-Vista prejudice. How so? Because most of them have the know-how to easily switch from XP to Vista or 2000 to XP or whatever. Learning Linux takes work and practice. It's rewarding, but it's a pain in the ass and Linux greatly lacks gaming support (btw, gaming is the topic of this article). If you are too lazy to switch from XP to Vista and learn a few things, but you aren't a Linux user, then go buy a Mac and shut up already. Vista runs fine. Sure, it requires a few tweaks and some optimization but so does EVERY new OS. The fact of the matter is DX10 is embedded in Vista and all future video cards will have DX10 support. Likewise, future processors will make a shift to 64bit which Vista utilizes to make better use or RAM. Considering that Vista is a fairly new platform, unless you have all new hardware to run with it, chances are you might encounter some bumps along the way. Such is the nature of technology, such is the nature of -shady?- businesses like Microsoft. Microsoft has shady business practices, but Vista is stable, runs smoothly, and is easier to use than Linux and more feature rich than a Mac (for gaming, anyway). So, if moving from XP to Vista is sooooooo hard just get a Mac and stop complaining. And if you are open source butt-hole, stop complaining. OpenGL sucks and has no support.
/endrant - usefulidiot, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12KERNEL! If I have one pet peeve, this is it.
- itseffinkasey, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10Are you kidding me? Digg is full of MS bashers and guys that will bend over for apple, yes there are a few Vista fan boys but hardly even a noticeable amount!
- ThE0eNiGmA, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Following on kent1146's lead, try playing Supreme Commander, Starcraft(with one, notable, pathetic exception) Warcraft 3, Diablo II, UT2004, Half-life 2 (with a few other exceptions), and more on a console. While some of the games have console versions, they are crippled in comparison. And I haven't even started on the more obscure games. PC gaming, by it's very nature, doesn't really cater to the mass market.
- serpentor, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Try a game that came out less than 3 years ago..
- zeejay, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Why would anyone serious about using their machine *not* install Vista Ultimate? A lot of us use our PCs for a whole lot more than solely gaming.... Actually, I maintain that the whole concept of "multiple levels" of an OS works against the best interests of the platform as a whole (case in point), but whatever.
- potterboy, on 10/19/2007, -4/+11In other news today, XP still lacks the gaming performance of 2000.
- xGeneric, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9"Performance will still be less under Vista but as long as it does not drop below 20fps, most people will be perfectly happy."
Is that a joke? 20FPS is a slide show, especially in some games where you usually get 40-60, but with sudden drops down to 20.
Ok, all this "They should have used a better card... use Nvidia's latest 8800 and you'll see how insignificant the difference is" is a ridiculous point to make. Microsoft, or any other company, shouldn't cater to the absolute smallest percent of their market, and say "F all the rest, upgrade your hardware". These cards are extremely expensive and the fact is the majority of gamers don't have them. The Performance difference between XP and Vista between hardware that isn't top of the line is very import to the vast majority of gamers. So quit being little twits who bitch at others for not living above their means for better FPS. - Useight, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Like what, posting comments on Digg?
- Jwoey, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8There's a language filter? *****.
Heeey, no there isn't. - kent1146, on 10/23/2007, -9/+16I like how the Linux fanboys, who typically spam any kind of anti-Microsoft with "install Linux!", are noticeably absent from a story about gaming.
That's right, Digg me down... and quick! Be sure to get in your reply about this one time, it only took you 12 hours to get a 6-month old game to run in Cedega! - Fredx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Yeah install the most expensive card on the market and you can't notice half your frames missing, well done microsoft
- TheCount, on 10/10/2007, -7/+14You're going back to XP then? Cause moving to say Linux or OS X won't help you at all.
- Puffball, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8It doesn't really matter which Vista edition you choose, you can easily remove components you don't need. Ultimate edition may take up more disk space, but it still runs the same amount of processes on a default install as Home Basic.
- StaticThunder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6WHAT? !
Yes. All the time. I like to be able to hear things sneaking up from behind ... - kronix2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Reviewing games on Vista Ultimate is standard practice. It's the high-end release targeted towards enthusiasts.
It's the same reason why every game was previously reviewed on XP Pro instead of XP Home. - JorgeGT, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10My laptop (2Gb 8600GT) runs BF2142 fine almost full quality settings, with Vista Bussiness.
I'm 0_o - LMN8R, on 10/10/2007, -5/+11Office 2007 is a fantastic application and works flawlessly on Vista. Don't feed the troll.
- Carburetor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6As a college student, how do you handle the office 2007 documents people are probably sending you from time to time?
Which office do you use?
Just curious, because i never found the right office alternative for me when i used Linux. - renegadeafk, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10Every Office 2007 app on vista loads nearly instantly here, 2 gigs of ram 3.0 ghz p4. My games run at the same fps as they did on XP (Including F.E.A.R and Stalker + Source games)
- ThE0eNiGmA, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Chances are the sum total of your PC parts is greater than the sum total of the Xbox 360 parts. In other words, just picking one aspect and comparing it is relatively meaningless.
- ZachSka87, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9Transgaming's Cider app, marketed to developers, is going to change all of that. That being said, dugg down for a Microsoft fanboy 1) Being wrong about there not being any Linux fanboys willing to speak up, and 2) For being completely ignorant to the ongoings at Transgaming, Inc.
- benitojuarez, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Games run great on vista 64 for me with a q6600 o/c at 3.6ghz, abit ip35 pro, 640mb 8800gts and 4gigs crucial ballistix at 4-4-4-11. I dunno what this guy is complaining about.
- asdfuiop, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I haven't heard the word 'dweeb' in a while
- floridiot2, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7***** that, give me the lunchbox!
- reed311, on 10/23/2007, -4/+9It's because the speed of machines have yet to catch up with Vista. When I first got Windows 95 on my old machine, it ran like ass. After I upgraded to a new system, it was like night and day. Vista runs great if you have the horsepower. Anyways, look at the alternatives, such as Linux or OSX. Game support on those two operating systems are laughable at best. Give me Vista over any OS on the market.
- sishgupta, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5As with most windows upgrade streams, they (upgrades) really suck.
I remember for years people who upgraded from 98 to XP had issues, it affected families the most.
I wouldnt be surprised if xp->vista was like that too. - MagicCake, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Actually, WoW isn't a bad test. Sure it looks like absolute *****, but it's made so poorly that it takes up as much resources as a newer game. Hey, maybe they did it on purpose so you could use it as a benchmark several years after release. Hmm...
- Useight, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Here's my system: AMD FX-60 (dual-core 2.6gHz) 3GB RAM, GeForce 8800GTS 640MB, 1.1TB HDD. That's pretty high-end. And I'm NOT switching to Vista.
- Promantarius, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5The reason you aren't seeing pretty things for DirectX10 in those games is because the games weren't written for DX10, the extra features were just added later. Crysis will be a better benchmark for graphical increases.
- klank, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7That is about what I have been experiencing....Frame-rates all across the board in all games (HL2, Fear, Quake 4, WoW, etc.) Who woulda thunk that GeForce 8800 Ultra would suck in Vista? When Vista SP1 comes out I will give it another try.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 195 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is