"When DX10 games come on line soon, people will be jumping to Vista like crazy."
The article was referring to Vista in a corporate environment, Where DX10 doesn't matter at all. Its true that sales may perk up a little for the gamer, but I know of several corporate environments that operate quite nicely with Windows2000 SP4.
I purchased a Twinhead Durabook laptop for business use. I don't see anything impressionable about the OS at this point other then it being secure.
Initially the laptop was running 512MB DDR but it was getting ate up at 75% usage, I had to upgrade to 1GB DDR just to function without delays.
Also the OS is just like the Apple commercial where the Apple guy wants to talk to the IBM guy but cannot unless authorized. Every software download encounters this until you customize the OS features.....disable....disable....disable.
The following is copied from another post I made in another topic
I know, not everyone is going to have a flawless experience with Vista, but the fact of the matter is: It's still a young operating system. You can't tell me Windows 95/98/2000/XP weren't just as twitchy in the beginning. Give these things time, let the OS mature a bit, send in those error reports, and most of your issues will be worked out.
On the subject of gaming and DriectX 10, No gamer has to update yet. DirectX 10 isn't out yet, so they can ride the XP wave a little longer. Once DX10 is released, a lot of gamers are going to feel forced to jump on the Vista train. They are by no means obligated. They could stick with DirectX 9 games on XP, as there are quite a few good ones out there. Heck, I still play a few DirectX 7 games.
The point here is that an upgrade is a choice. If you don't like it, fine, stick with 95/98/2000/XP. There's nothing wrong with that. Microsoft didn't force you to upgrade, so don't complain to them.
________ "None of you understand. I'm not locked up in here with you. YOU'RE locked up in here with ME." - Walter Kovacs, A.K.A. Rorschach.
I'm not getting on anyone's case. It's just ridiculous for someone to come out of nowhere and mention 'gaming' like as if it's the only thing a computer was meant to do. Sure, gaming on a computer is fun, but it's not all that a computer is capable of. And once again, the article had nothing to do with gaming - so it's just silly.
I am what you would call depressingly comfortable...
DublinGunner - you are saying your PC can run Vista flawlessly and doesn't need a DX10 card and 2GB RAM and can use a SB LIve card.
But I didn't talk about running Vista with a 2GB and DX10 card and a modern soundcard. I said running a modern game on Vista will need that. That game will have to run on top of Vista. And it will be very soon, given the hype over Crysis (to help the OS and the new DX10 cards which is why the PC games media hypes games like this) that games start needing DX10, becuase games companies have always believed they can drive the hardware.
But as was shown when games went to CD from floppy too quick to cause the first PC gaming recession, went to DVD only too quick to cause the first small chasm between the home PC gamer and PC games (ie when the Sims started it's journey of becoming the biggest selling game of all, and funnily enough, a game that has always run on an average home PC!) and the follwoing years where gaming has demanded more and more hardware investement for less and less gameplay and more and more shallow corridor blasting. FPS or FPS or FPS as a genre range and killing and killing and killing as a mantra.
this is a good article. I love how you're bashing vista like crazy while its advertized all over your site. 5 vista ad's on the right, intellitext ad's about vista embedded in the article with ms live search in the bottem. Good stuff, and im sure your advertisers are going to really love this!
During Vista's Alpha and Beta releases, there were NO DX10 capable GPUs on the market.
I've got one, and it doesn't seem to be helping for the games or much of any other applications...for now.
Vista also incorporates what were 3rd party applications associated with security, media management, and user control....as well as the DX10 graphical enhancements.
I'd have to agree with those folks saying that they'd wait for SP1 or SP2, but at the same time Vista is only exhibiting the same problems as any other OS upgrade. Heck, look at Mac OS9 vs 10.x....
Ad Astra Per Aspera
(A rough road leads to the Stars)
We all know what we know, and everyone else knows we are wrong.
System Specifications in BIO
This is the problem: A game that sells 5 times the next game will get called 'casual' as though that doesn't count, and a game that sells 5 times less, or even more than 5 times less is still seen as a huge hit because it's 'hardcore',
PC games sales have halved in 15 years and if you take the SIms and Zoo Tycoons and bejewelled, etc 'casual games' out of the total is is more like a 50% drop in the last 10 years!
Sometimes I wonder if PC gamers are their own worst enemies.... And with regards Crysis running on a DX9, well, that is a) where all the hype is isn't it? That's what everybody's talking about in the media, 'the first Vista DX9 game!', I think not! And 2) Practically all PC gamers from 'casual' to 'hardcore' will have to either upgrade their PC or buy a new one to be able to play the AAA titles due out in the second half of 2007. Fewer and fewer PC gamers are doing that. Vista only makes the gulf wider. Hence the falling PC game sales - $2 billion 20 years ago, less than $1 billion now.
there are alot of nay sayers about vista but these people are the same people 5 years ago saying the same thing about xp (eg. xp is just a pretty version of win 2000) . windows 95 to windows vista or mac os wateva & linux havent really changed much at all over the past 15 years, we still use the same features from all these OS's the only thing that has changed is that they have been updated & added more usless features.
over all i think vista is doing alot better then xp ever did when it was first released, all the computers i have built with it or upgraded to have worked perfect, the only problem i ever faced with is drivers. 99% of the programs i have installed on vista have worked fine, proberly not as well when running them in xp but good enought for a os that has only been out for 2 months.
but if you use linux or mac os then keep using them & quit saying "insert ms os here" will be the end of microsoft because i still remember people saying it when windows 98 came out & microsoft is still here.
Well, as a retro and modern PC gamer, I have a dual boot win98 and XP system. Over the years I have gained more respect for Windows 98, and certainly while games came out that would run in 98 and XP, I would almost always end up playing them in 98. The game was smoother, the sound was crisper and the crashes fewer.
I need Win98 less now, as with DOSBox you can play most DOS games without a problem in XP.
But then I wonder if that very utility is the reason for the continuing decline in new PC game sales and the growth on eBay and elsewhere are growing very fast!
I work for a small corportation. I am fortunate enough that we replace our computers every three to four years. I will have machines that run Vista later this quarter. Unfortunately we will be install XP on them until next year, as most of our applications do not work with Vista. It will take time for our software people to get some apps to run with IE7. That was another nightmare when Microsoft forced that out as a critical update. On a gamer note, I will not be updating to Vista until the get the multiple monitor issue resolved. I love Eve Online spanned across two 20" monitors. I still can't get Vista to do that.