* REMOVED *
This comment was deleted on Jun 3, 20:47.

I got an idea ... why dont you guys flame each other?

haha

I got an idea ... why dont you guys flame each other?

And that hasn't been so in several months.

In my first or second post in this thread, I did mention the early on experiences, and in fact I said something like "STALKER was a disaster on Vista". And that wasn't the only game or application.

But things change whenever a new OS is introduced especially one that gets as universally adopted as those coming out of Redmond. In case of Vista, the graphic drivers have become dramatically better and the OS hotfixes which improve gaming performance have come at a very rapid pace.

So as I have said many times in this thread, the games in Vista with DX9 run at the same performance levels as they do in XP.

And you obviously completely ignored the rest of my post.

Fanboys (yourself) and extremists alike both need to take their collective heads out of their asses and realize that everything isn't perfect with Vista, but it is being worked on and is getting better as time goes on.

Not everything has been fixed. Just because you aren't having problems (which I think is bullshit), doesn't mean problems don't exist for others with different hardware and software configurations.

It definitely has its own set of annoyances...Within two or three months you'll see a lot more people.. umm.. fanboys saying the same thing.

So you agree with me then. It's not perfect, it has problems and it's still being worked on and will continue to be improved. So why are you arguing with me?


----------------------------------------------------
Currently fragging in The Witcher, Burnout Paradise, Company of Heroes, Crysis

Join the "Blues News" Steam Community Group. http://steamcommunity.com/groups/bluesnews/

Jesus christ Riley you are a fucking retard.

There you go again, ignoring what I actually write and misrepresenting my positions to make yourself seem correct. The problem here with the editions of Windows is not complete lack of choice but rather poor choice or selection. First, Microsoft is not giving users good choices because it is artifically crippling its product in creating less expensive versions of Windows.

It's their product, they can disable what ever they like for a cheaper version. If they disabled the Fax and Moviemaker functions, you'd bitch about that too. The average user with a Home edition will probably need the fax function. They may even want to make home movies. But do they care or even notice that some security is lost? No. Do they care they can't share files? No. Because if they did, they would have gotten the Pro version.

The user has a choice. But as usual you are bitching about something that nobody gives a fuck about. You don't like the Home features...get Pro. It's not rocket science.

You need to get up off your 500 lb ass and walk to the other room to use the computer instead of remote access. Maybe go outside and breathe some fresh air since you are up.

----------------------------------------------------
Currently fragging in The Witcher, Burnout Paradise, Company of Heroes, Crysis

Join the "Blues News" Steam Community Group. http://steamcommunity.com/groups/bluesnews/

Well this vista vs xp debate is interesting.

Who will win the battle?

This comment was edited on Feb 29, 12:35.

And that hasn't been so in several months.

It's still true to some extent for even the latest video cards as published benchmarks show.

So as I have said many times in this thread, the games in Vista with DX9 run at the same performance levels as they do in XP.

That is still untrue as I proved regardless of how many times you repeat it.

Already, nVidia leaked graphic drivers come out first for Vista and then XP.

The reason for that is not because there are more Vista users, but rather that Vista users need leaked drivers more than XP users. Since Vista performs worse and is less compatible than XP, Nvidia has to do more revisions to Vista drivers to try to get them right. XP drivers perform better and are more compatible/work better with games so there is less need to release them as frequently. XP users aren't clamoring as much for new drivers so there is less need to releasee them before certification testing is done on them. With leaked video drivers the squeaky Vista wheel is simply getting the grease.

This comment was edited on Feb 29, 07:01.

First of all, this is a 3% difference which is even within realm of benchmark margin

NO, it is NOT within a margin of error because it is already an averaged result and a calculated average at that. This isn't some representative human survey where results can vary due to human nature and sample size. These numbers are actual calculations resulting from repeated testing on computers (which are consistent by design), and they consistently show that Vista has a measurable performance penalty versus XP. That is NOT performance parity.

and then they are talking about 200fps

Yes, you can argue that the performance penalty isn't noticeable to some users on some PC's, but you can't rationally deny that it doesn't actually exist as you continue to do.

Regarding Quake2 and the online *generic* rage it caused because of id abandoning DOS, you clearly don't remember how bad it got. The DOS to Windows-only transition among gamers was much harshly received.

No, it wasn't bad at all as a whole and both Windows 95's and Quake II's and other games' sales prove it. In contrast even if your claims of outrage over Windows 95 were true, XP users including gamers have not migrated to Vista in great numbers despite similar objections like the overwhleming majority of DOS users quickly migrated to Windows 95.

You are more than welcome to say Vista performance sucks

I have not claimed that at all. I simply refute your erroneous claim that Vista has performance parity with XP even on DirectX 9 games. It clearly doesn't as I have demonstrated.

when you start claiming that 195 vs 201fps is some sort of an indication of gaming performance comparison

It is but ONE figure which YOU cherry-picked from several benchmark results that I cited. If I had not been even-handed I would have simply cited the HL2 EP2 number which showed a 12% performance drop from Vista to XP or used one of the even bigger drops from UT3. From what I have read in the benchmarks, that 3% drop is more representative of a best case scenario than an average one or worst case.

1) Scheduled backup is there in Home Premium

I didn't claim that it wasn't. What I claimed is that it is an example of an application which is in both XP Pro and Vista Ultimate but not every version of Vista.

2) The standard MS FAX application is not there, but you install any FAX application, and most people do have their personal favourites.

That is a red herring. I do not claim that Vista Home cannot run third-party fax software, only that XP Pro has it and Vista Home does not.

3) Vista Home does have local and group policy settings. It doesn't have the policy editor but you can change the registry settings yourselves.

In XP Home that functionality has been totally disabled. Yes, you can make registry settings for some policy settings, but XP Home ignores them. I assume the same is true for Vista Home judging from what I read at Microsoft's official Vista Help website although it was not spelled out clearly as such.

Why anyone would want to have policy settings on a home PC (used for games, net browsing, media centre, office work and video editing etc) enough to pay extra for Vista Ultimate is beyond me.

That falls into the category of "If you have to ask, you wouldn't understand." I know from a security standpoint what can be done without proper security settings including those set and enforced by local and group policies, so that is why I find that the lack of that feature so appalling.

In any case, you can change the policy settings on Home Premium. To clarify to others, we are not talking about administrator/user level policies and restricting/sharing access to an arbitrary folder. Home Premium does all of that.

Are you certain that is true for Vista Home? XP Home does not do either one.

Group policy is where a single node can manage a set of applications over a network of PCs.

No, on XP group policies can also be enforced locally. And you don't need a domain/active directory to enforce them either.

4) EFS (encrypted file system) is not there in Vista Home Premium, and I wish it were included but again it's not something that'll make me spend extra for the Vista Ultimate.

All users should have some form of file or disk encryption especially given the prevalence of portable PC's and the Internet. Sure, I don't think Microsoft should charge extra for what is an innate feature of the OS, but if users don't pay Microsoft for encryption functionality they will likely have to pay someone else for it.

Vista Home Premium can be found for $70

For a fully-licensed, standard version of it? I doubt it. As I mentioned before, an academic version is NOT legally obtainable and useable by most consumers.

and can be used free for four months (for that matter, any version of Vista can be run in trial mode). This is already better than previous MS OS.

Microsoft has offered free 120-day trial versions of every one of its Windows OS releases since Windows 95. I know because I still have the CD-ROM's for them. So, Vista is no different except in that this trial uses the same installation media/files as the full product.

performs the same in DX9 compared to XP.

As I proved earlier and as countless public benchmarks have proven, that is NOT true especially not for every PC. Vista is slower than XP even in DirectX 9 games although the extent varies.

This comment was edited on Feb 29, 07:19.

(duplicate post)

This comment was edited on Feb 29, 04:56.

but when Microsoft gives it's end-users choice with pricing to match, he bitches about the Home version not being as good as Pro.

There you go again, ignoring what I actually write and misrepresenting my positions to make yourself seem correct. The problem here with the editions of Windows is not complete lack of choice but rather poor choice or selection. First, Microsoft is not giving users good choices because it is artifically crippling its product in creating less expensive versions of Windows. It cost Microsoft time and money to disable the features from Home that it disabled instead them of leaving them in. If XP Home were simply a product with fewer or no additions or accessories (such a Moviemaker software, fax software, etc.) that would be one thing. But, Microsoft has exceeded that by actually disabling functionality (including important security functionality) that is already incorporated into the OS not simply leaving out some extra. That is a deceitful and unacceptable means to offer a less expensive product. Second, the pricing of Home doesn't match its crippling given that this functionality is disabled. If it were much less expensive than it is, it would be more acceptable although the security issues due to the disabled functionality would remain. I have no problem with Microsoft offering a lesser priced and featured version of its OS products, but XP Home is simply too little for too much.

Riley is a joke and simply cannot be taken seriously.

YOU are the real joke who can't be taken seriously because you seriously don't know how to comprehend what you read or you simply don't bother to read and make rash assumptions.

This comment was edited on Feb 29, 07:05.

>>The only fundamental change that has to happen is this
>>unfounded bashing to stop, and that 'll come in time when
>>more and more games supporting DX10 start coming out.

>Unfounded? You've got to be kidding right? You are on crack.
>It's been proven time and time again by various sources both
>hobbyists and professionals that games generally run up to
>20% slower in Vista than they do in XP using the exact same
>settings.

And that hasn't been so in several months.

In my first or second post in this thread, I did mention the early on experiences, and in fact I said something like "STALKER was a disaster on Vista". And that wasn't the only game or application.

But things change whenever a new OS is introduced especially one that gets as universally adopted as those coming out of Redmond. In case of Vista, the graphic drivers have become dramatically better and the OS hotfixes which improve gaming performance have come at a very rapid pace.

So as I have said many times in this thread, the games in Vista with DX9 run at the same performance levels as they do in XP.

No where have I said, that Vista is perfect. It definitely has its own set of annoyances, but compared to XP, it's a better OS. The only reason you see this as a fanboy post, is because what I am writing here is very much against what you have heard or read (but not exprienced recently). Within two or three months you'll see a lot more people.. umm.. fanboys saying the same thing.

Already, nVidia leaked graphic drivers come out first for Vista and then XP. The tipping point came last October and XP will just get increasingly irrelevant as far as PC gaming is concerned.

This comment was edited on Feb 29, 02:44.

The only fundamental change that has to happen is this unfounded bashing to stop, and that 'll come in time when more and more games supporting DX10 start coming out.

Unfounded? You've got to be kidding right? You are on crack. It's been proven time and time again by various sources both hobbyists and professionals that games generally run up to 20% slower in Vista than they do in XP using the exact same settings. This isn't for all games, there are exceptions. This may be slowly changing as updates and drivers come out, but that doesn't change the fact that the problem still exists. Not to mention all the other software incompatibilities and performance issues.

Fanboys (yourself) and extremists alike both need to take their collective heads out of their asses and realize that everything isn't perfect with Vista, but it is being worked on and is getting better as time goes on.

Personally I tried Vista out back in September or so, it had shitty driver support for my hardware, Steam ran like shit, as did every game under it, the OS itself was very slow and I wasn't even running Aero. I intend to reinstall it within the coming months to see how things have improved, but I'm not still not expecting to be wanting to make a full transition and uninstalling XP.

----------------------------------------------------
Currently fragging in The Witcher, Burnout Paradise, Company of Heroes, Crysis

Join the "Blues News" Steam Community Group. http://steamcommunity.com/groups/bluesnews/

I seem to remember more than a bit of wailing and gnashing of teeth when things started going Windows only. The internet was nothing like it is today, which probably made it seem less than it was.

>201.66 vs 195.34 is not performance parity ?

> There would be no measurable performance delta between XP and Vista if there were truely parity.

This is now getting beyond idiotic. First of all, this is a 3% difference which is even within realm of benchmark margin, and then they are talking about 200fps! Yes, other scores may have seen bigger or less differences, but that whole review can be considered one data point. I gave one review which compared XP to Vista 32 and 64 bits at three resolutions in several games and the performance was alike. I consider 44 and 42 fps to be similar, by the way.

Regarding Quake2 and the online *generic* rage it caused because of id abandoning DOS, you clearly don't remember how bad it got. The DOS to Windows-only transition among gamers was much harshly received.

For the above two points, I won't argue further, because I can't believe someone can find this arguable. You are more than welcome to say Vista performance sucks, but when you start claiming that 195 vs 201fps is some sort of an indication of gaming performance comparison, then there's nothing more to say.

Now about Vista Home, once again your comments are a mix of false statements and exaggerations,
1) Scheduled backup is there in Home Premium
2) The standard MS FAX application is not there, but you install any FAX application, and most people do have their personal favourites.
3) Vista Home does have local and group policy settings. It doesn't have the policy editor but you can change the registry settings yourselves. Why anyone would want to have policy settings on a home PC (used for games, net browsing, media centre, office work and video editing etc) enough to pay extra for Vista Ultimate is beyond me. In any case, you can change the policy settings on Home Premium. To clarify to others, we are not talking about administrator/user level policies and restricting/sharing access to an arbitrary folder. Home Premium does all of that. Group policy is where a single node can manage a set of applications over a network of PCs.
4) EFS (encrypted file system) is not there in Vista Home Premium, and I wish it were included but again it's not something that'll make me spend extra for the Vista Ultimate. Most PC gamers will likely say the same.

> but unless Microsoft makes some drastic and fundamental
>changes to Vista and its pricing or releases a new and
>improved version of Windows, XP will still be the OS of the
>majority of Windows users and new games will run on it.

Vista Home Premium can be found for $70 and can be used free for four months (for that matter, any version of Vista can be run in trial mode). This is already better than previous MS OS. It's a stable OS with lots of new cosmetic and under-the-hood changes and performs the same in DX9 compared to XP. The only fundamental change that has to happen is this unfounded bashing to stop, and that 'll come in time when more and more games supporting DX10 start coming out.

Crippled because it's missing features 99% of home users will never use?

Riley bitches about Valve and other companies for not giving end-users "choice".

but when Microsoft gives it's end-users choice with pricing to match, he bitches about the Home version not being as good as Pro. Riley is a joke and simply cannot be taken seriously.

----------------------------------------------------
Currently fragging in The Witcher, Burnout Paradise, Company of Heroes, Crysis

Join the "Blues News" Steam Community Group. http://steamcommunity.com/groups/bluesnews/

Crippled because it's missing features 99% of home users will never use?

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy to presume that home users will never use the missing features when they can't even try to use them because those features have been removed. The fact is that even home users need those features to properly secure and utilize their PC's even if they are currently unaware of them. No serious and knowledgeable computer user would tolerate having to use XP Home on a regular basis and to store, secure, and share his own data if he had ever used XP Pro and knew all that was missing from Home.

This comment was edited on Feb 28, 09:56.

Vista Home is crippled in that it has no local and group policy editing, and lacks full Encrypting File System (EFS) support

Crippled because it's missing features 99% of home users will never use?

NEway, Vista is generally slower than XP - especially on the desktop. I like the new features, particularly search, which is why I use Vista as my primary OS but I really do wish it was faster. SP1 has made no difference.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Founder of the "I Hate Smiley Fitz" society

Remember: Riley has autism. He has trouble communicating, and in an overstimulating
environment, he can get frightened and run away, leaving his parents frantic. - Auburn

201.66 vs 195.34 is not performance parity ?

No, not when you consider the fact that score is an average at one specific resolution and was obtained on a very high-end video card. There would be no measurable performance delta between XP and Vista if there were truely parity. Instead Vista is consistently slower. You are also overlooking the score I highlighted which showed a ~12% drop at the middle resolution. That is a significant drop, and one which would likely be more pronounced with a lower-end video card where the OS would have more of an effect on performance.

The rebuttal is based on one particular setting (which we don't even know what it is) from three possible ones in one particular game.

No, all of the games in that review showed lower scores on Vista versus XP. I simply picked out a couple (3DMark 06 and HL2 EP2) since they were definitely running under DirectX 9 on Vista. The other scores could have been running under DirectX 10 so I omitted them. For example the drops seen in the UT3 benchmarks in that review for Vista were much more pronounced than the two games I cited.

By the way, if you want to know what the settings tested were, simply click on the link to the review which I provided in my post below. The only reason you don't know the settings is because you didn't take the time to actually read the review or at least look at the charts.

Then you slept through 1996 and 1997. If anything, the gamers' anger now is lot less than the wrath of the DOS grognards.

No, it wasn't! QuakeWorld for Quake was released before Quake II, and it was Windows only (and Linux), and there was no mass protest by Quake users against it for lack of a DOS version. The overwhelming majority of computer users including gamers welcomed Windows 95. Many users were even running the 95 betas before it was officially released. Gamers didn't mind Windows 95's hardware requirements because they were no higher than what their games already required. Quake's system requirements were greater than Windows 95's.

Vista Home is nothing like XP Home. It's almost equivalent to XP-Pro in the new hierarchy

This shows it is YOU who clearly has no clue. Some of the differences between the various editions of Vista are defined at Microsoft's website here: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/choose.mspx I suggest you read it. Go down the list of features, and you will see that only Vista Ultimate has everything that is available to Windows XP Pro like fax, scheduled backup, and Remote Desktop. And although it is not listed in that table, just like XP Home, Vista Home is crippled in that it has no local and group policy editing, and lacks full Encrypting File System (EFS) support.

An year from now you'll have given up PC gaming (at least the newer games) or you'll be using Vista.

Given how strong Windows XP's installed base remains one year into Vista's release, I see no signs that game developers are abandoning XP for Vista for their games that are in development. A year from now Vista may have gained some marketshare, but unless Microsoft makes some drastic and fundamental changes to Vista and its pricing or releases a new and improved version of Windows, XP will still be the OS of the majority of Windows users and new games will run on it.

This comment was edited on Feb 28, 09:43.

As for file sharing yes XP Home has that.

Once again you demonstrate your ignorance. Yes, XP Home, has what Microsoft euphemistically calls "simple file sharing." However, a more accurate description would be "severely limited and insecure file sharing." It is far from the full featured and secure file sharing available in full versions of Windows NT/2000/XP/2003/Vista. I could write paragraphs explaining the limits and insecurities of Home's "simple file sharing," but since you are too ignorant to even know that such differences exist, you would not understand the details.

As for Active Directory Yes XP Home has that (

XP Home CANNOT join a domain or an Active Directory tree.

Remote desktop, wow you got me there bro, much better spending an extra 100$ on an OS for 1 feature that you can easily get via software multiple other ways.

Because Remote Desktop / Terminal Services is built into every NT kernel version of Windows since 2000 (except for the crippled "Home" releases of XP and Vista), it is the least expensive and easiest remote control solution to implement and use for client PC's. I admit that Microsoft shouldn't be charging extra for Remote Desktop, but the price difference between XP Home and Pro is under $100 if you shop around online.

Your initial argument about how you have to get Vista Ultimate other wise it has no usefull features is very flawed

Your reading comprehension is atrocious. That statement is NOT my point at all. My point written clearly below is that the only edition of Vista which has all of the features of XP Pro is Vista Ultimate. The other editions of Vista do not have all of the features and functions of XP Pro and are far too crippled and lacking for a serious computer user compared to what XP Pro offers. And, when you couple that with the fact that Vista Ultimate costs at least $200, is not completely compatible with all of the software and hardware that runs on XP, and runs more slowly than Windows XP on the same PC, there is no compelling reason for consumers to spend that $200 on Windows Vista.

Oh and how about this, You are just a joke.

You are the real joke, and a bad joke at that, just like Vista.

This comment was edited on Feb 28, 05:08.