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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
First of all, this is a 3% difference which is even within realm of benchmark marginNO, 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 200fpsYes, 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 sucksI 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 comparisonIt 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 PremiumI 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 $70For 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.
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.
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?
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.
Vista Home is crippled in that it has no local and group policy editing, and lacks full Encrypting File System (EFS) supportCrippled because it's missing features 99% of home users will never use?
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.
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 hierarchyThis 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.
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 flawedYour 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.