Jump to content


Vista Home works great!


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 iEvan

iEvan

    Heroic

  • IMG Writers
  • 357 posts
  • Location:Ontario, Canada
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 05 December 2006 - 04:22 PM

Not much to say... just installed Vista Home Premium via Boot Camp and the install went flawless. Vista does feel like the next evolution of XP, but my goodness is it confusing. Some navigation is made easier, while things like trying to navigate the Control Panels gets more and more convoluted. An Intel iMac CD 20" scores a 4.5 on the included benchmark. Something fun to try on rainy nights, but I haven't seen anything that would make me suggest to my friends/family/customers that it is superior to OS X.

Remember guns don't kill people... Pfhor do.


#2 Smoke_Tetsu

Smoke_Tetsu

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3318 posts
  • Steam Name:Tetsu Jutsu
  • Steam ID:smoke_tetsu
  • Location:Cyberspace

Posted 05 December 2006 - 05:08 PM

For me only real thing that makes it superior is the exclusive game titles that are going to come out for it and that's the only reason why I would install it on an intel mac.
--Tetsuo

Alex Delarg, A Clockwork Orange said:

It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen.

the Battle Cat said:

Slower and faster? I'm sorry to hear such good news?

Late 2012 27 inch iMac, Core i7 Quad 3.4GHz, 16GB RAM, Nvidia GeForce GTX 680MX 2GB, 3TB HDD - Mavericks

Late 2009 27 inch iMac, Core i5 2.6GHz, 12GB RAM, ATI Radeon 4850HD 512MB, 1TB HDD - Mavericks

Mac Mini, PowerPC G4 1.4Ghz, 1GB RAM, Radeon 9200 32MB, 256GB HDD - Leopard

Dell Inspiron 1200 Notebook: 1.2GHz Celeron, 1.2GB RAM, Intel GMA915, 75GB HDD - Ubuntu

Generic Black Tower PC, Dual Core 64-bit 2.4GHz, 4GB RAM, GeForce 9600 GT 512MB - Windows 7


#3 Goldibus

Goldibus

    Fanatic

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Location:Anchorage, Alaska

Posted 06 December 2006 - 06:33 PM

View PostSmoke_Tetsu, on December 5th 2006, 02:08 PM, said:

For me only real thing that makes it superior is the exclusive game titles that are going to come out for it and that's the only reason why I would install it on an intel mac.

I would just stick with XP at the moment. Halo 2 is the only Vista only game I can think of and it is not really worth installing a pricey, probably bug laden OS for.

Goldibus

#4 Smoke_Tetsu

Smoke_Tetsu

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3318 posts
  • Steam Name:Tetsu Jutsu
  • Steam ID:smoke_tetsu
  • Location:Cyberspace

Posted 06 December 2006 - 06:49 PM

View PostGoldibus, on December 6th 2006, 05:33 PM, said:

I would just stick with XP at the moment. Halo 2 is the only Vista only game I can think of and it is not really worth installing a pricey, probably bug laden OS for.

Goldibus

Off the top of my head one game I'm excited about that I can also think of is Alan Wake but it's still no reason to move to Vista immediately. However either way I don't have a computer capable of either so it's a moot point but my previous point still stands and that is I would really only use any version of Windows mostly for the games.
--Tetsuo

Alex Delarg, A Clockwork Orange said:

It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen.

the Battle Cat said:

Slower and faster? I'm sorry to hear such good news?

Late 2012 27 inch iMac, Core i7 Quad 3.4GHz, 16GB RAM, Nvidia GeForce GTX 680MX 2GB, 3TB HDD - Mavericks

Late 2009 27 inch iMac, Core i5 2.6GHz, 12GB RAM, ATI Radeon 4850HD 512MB, 1TB HDD - Mavericks

Mac Mini, PowerPC G4 1.4Ghz, 1GB RAM, Radeon 9200 32MB, 256GB HDD - Leopard

Dell Inspiron 1200 Notebook: 1.2GHz Celeron, 1.2GB RAM, Intel GMA915, 75GB HDD - Ubuntu

Generic Black Tower PC, Dual Core 64-bit 2.4GHz, 4GB RAM, GeForce 9600 GT 512MB - Windows 7


#5 Lemon Lime

Lemon Lime

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2227 posts
  • Location:California

Posted 06 December 2006 - 07:36 PM

View PostiEvan, on December 5th 2006, 02:22 PM, said:

An Intel iMac CD 20" scores a 4.5 on the included benchmark.

whats the most you could score?

#6 Ichigo27

Ichigo27

    NSFW o_O

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2241 posts
  • Location:pingas

Posted 06 December 2006 - 08:03 PM

View PostSmoke_Tetsu, on December 6th 2006, 07:49 PM, said:

Off the top of my head one game I'm excited about that I can also think of is Alan Wake but it's still no reason to move to Vista immediately. However either way I don't have a computer capable of either so it's a moot point but my previous point still stands and that is I would really only use any version of Windows mostly for the games.

Alan Wake? That game is so sick! It seems most likely Ragnarok 2 would be vista ready.
What is a man?

#7 Smoke_Tetsu

Smoke_Tetsu

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3318 posts
  • Steam Name:Tetsu Jutsu
  • Steam ID:smoke_tetsu
  • Location:Cyberspace

Posted 06 December 2006 - 09:00 PM

View PostIchigo27, on December 6th 2006, 07:03 PM, said:

Alan Wake? That game is so sick!

I assume thats "sick" in a good way!  :P :D

View PostIchigo27, on December 6th 2006, 07:03 PM, said:

It seems most likely Ragnarok 2 would be vista ready.

It seems it is being written for versions below Vista but I would not be surprised if it ran in Vista. Especially since by the time it comes out Vista will probably be on the shelves and being sold on new computers. However.. who knows if Ragnarok 2 will be a part of the "games for windows" program which pretty much would mean it's Vista certified.
--Tetsuo

Alex Delarg, A Clockwork Orange said:

It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen.

the Battle Cat said:

Slower and faster? I'm sorry to hear such good news?

Late 2012 27 inch iMac, Core i7 Quad 3.4GHz, 16GB RAM, Nvidia GeForce GTX 680MX 2GB, 3TB HDD - Mavericks

Late 2009 27 inch iMac, Core i5 2.6GHz, 12GB RAM, ATI Radeon 4850HD 512MB, 1TB HDD - Mavericks

Mac Mini, PowerPC G4 1.4Ghz, 1GB RAM, Radeon 9200 32MB, 256GB HDD - Leopard

Dell Inspiron 1200 Notebook: 1.2GHz Celeron, 1.2GB RAM, Intel GMA915, 75GB HDD - Ubuntu

Generic Black Tower PC, Dual Core 64-bit 2.4GHz, 4GB RAM, GeForce 9600 GT 512MB - Windows 7


#8 Ichigo27

Ichigo27

    NSFW o_O

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2241 posts
  • Location:pingas

Posted 06 December 2006 - 10:41 PM

View PostSmoke_Tetsu, on December 6th 2006, 10:00 PM, said:

It seems it is being written for versions below Vista but I would not be surprised if it ran in Vista. Especially since by the time it comes out Vista will probably be on the shelves and being sold on new computers. However.. who knows if Ragnarok 2 will be a part of the "games for windows" program which pretty much would mean it's Vista certified.

Unreal Engine 2.5 maybe an issue but by the time its released outside of south korea and japan(most likely in march), Vista support would be a no brainer.
What is a man?

#9 StopDropBurn

StopDropBurn

    Master Blaster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2437 posts

Posted 07 December 2006 - 08:33 AM

View PostSmoke_Tetsu, on December 6th 2006, 10:00 PM, said:

I assume thats "sick" in a good way!  :P :D

Yep, Alan Wake looks pretty interesting, I'm wondering how the gameplay will work out though, the concept is great, but it could very easily be ruined.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

#10 Huntn

Huntn

    Verbal Windbag

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4074 posts
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 12 December 2006 - 09:38 AM

View PostGoldibus, on December 6th 2006, 06:33 PM, said:

I would just stick with XP at the moment. Halo 2 is the only Vista only game I can think of and it is not really worth installing a pricey, probably bug laden OS for.

Goldibus

If Halo 2 is Vista only compatible (not WinXP), that is truly despicable and totally out of  character for PC games. Even recently some developers were supporting Win98. Why the hell would a developer box themselves into less sales? Or should I ask how much did the devil pay them?

Is Direct X 10 a Vista exclusive too? :P

#11 PeopleLikeFrank

PeopleLikeFrank

    Uberspewer

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2690 posts
  • Location:The Republic of Soviet Canukistan
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 12 December 2006 - 11:25 AM

View PostHuntn, on December 12th 2006, 10:38 AM, said:

If Halo 2 is Vista only compatible (not WinXP), that is truly despicable and totally out of  character for PC games. Even recently some developers were supporting Win98. Why the hell would a developer box themselves into less sales? Or should I ask how much did the devil pay them?

Is Direct X 10 a Vista exclusive too? :P

Yep, DX10 is Vista only. This is the nominal reason for Halo 2 being Vista only, though the real reason is that they want to sell more copies of the OS. They don't really need any more sales of the game, so they're using it as an exclusive to promote their "Games for Windows" program.

I might consider an upgrade once DX10 compatible video cards come down a bit it price and power consumption. Until then, they've got some time to work the kinks out...
The dork formerly known as nobody
---
MBP: C2D @ 2.66 Ghz | GeForce 9600M GT 256Mb | 8GB RAM | 120GB SSD + 500GB HD | 10.6.2 / W7 x64
PC: Q9550 | 6950 2GB | 8GB RAM | 80GB SSD + 750GB HD | W7 x64

#12 Smoke_Tetsu

Smoke_Tetsu

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3318 posts
  • Steam Name:Tetsu Jutsu
  • Steam ID:smoke_tetsu
  • Location:Cyberspace

Posted 12 December 2006 - 12:52 PM

They say DirectX10 is Vista only because of significant driver re-architecture that it's built upon which can't be back-ported to XP. How true that is I don't know but that's what they say. I don't see why Halo 2 has to be a DirectX10 game though as it wasn't even one on the Xbox. Unless they are doing enhancements and or taking advantage of other Vista only technologies (live anywhere?) Games like Crysis (and Alan Wake?) ARE DirectX10 games however. If they release a new OpenGL which is equivalent then they might be able to port some of those games to other systems that have that new GL but even then you'd need new hardware and software to take advantage.
--Tetsuo

Alex Delarg, A Clockwork Orange said:

It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen.

the Battle Cat said:

Slower and faster? I'm sorry to hear such good news?

Late 2012 27 inch iMac, Core i7 Quad 3.4GHz, 16GB RAM, Nvidia GeForce GTX 680MX 2GB, 3TB HDD - Mavericks

Late 2009 27 inch iMac, Core i5 2.6GHz, 12GB RAM, ATI Radeon 4850HD 512MB, 1TB HDD - Mavericks

Mac Mini, PowerPC G4 1.4Ghz, 1GB RAM, Radeon 9200 32MB, 256GB HDD - Leopard

Dell Inspiron 1200 Notebook: 1.2GHz Celeron, 1.2GB RAM, Intel GMA915, 75GB HDD - Ubuntu

Generic Black Tower PC, Dual Core 64-bit 2.4GHz, 4GB RAM, GeForce 9600 GT 512MB - Windows 7


#13 Huntn

Huntn

    Verbal Windbag

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4074 posts
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 12 December 2006 - 06:56 PM

View Postnobody, on December 12th 2006, 11:25 AM, said:

Yep, DX10 is Vista only. This is the nominal reason for Halo 2 being Vista only, though the real reason is that they want to sell more copies of the OS. They don't really need any more sales of the game, so they're using it as an exclusive to promote their "Games for Windows" program.

I might consider an upgrade once DX10 compatible video cards come down a bit it price and power consumption. Until then, they've got some time to work the kinks out...

Sinister as only MS can be. You know darn well that they could make Direct X 10 WinXP compatible if they wanted to. So does that mean you need Vista to install DX 10 and play a DX10 game?  Or will games be backwards DX 9 compatible?  If new games won't play on WinXP I'll be fuming!  :bleedingeyes:

#14 Stradivis

Stradivis

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 46 posts
  • Location:Dark Side of The Moon

Posted 13 December 2006 - 06:39 AM

Maybe they'll use the smart approach: so, you want Halo 2, get Vista, but remember that your old games won't be compatible with it. Hey, wait a second, did you say OS9 to OSX? No, XP to Vista. Oh, ok.

  :happy:
Goede, de bussen is groot!

#15 PeopleLikeFrank

PeopleLikeFrank

    Uberspewer

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2690 posts
  • Location:The Republic of Soviet Canukistan
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 13 December 2006 - 08:08 AM

View PostHuntn, on December 12th 2006, 07:56 PM, said:

Sinister as only MS can be. You know darn well that they could make Direct X 10 WinXP compatible if they wanted to. So does that mean you need Vista to install DX 10 and play a DX10 game?  Or will games be backwards DX 9 compatible?  If new games won't play on WinXP I'll be fuming!  :bleedingeyes:

Most games have been able to fall back to older rendering paths for people that don't have newer graphics cards, and it will probably be true of most DX10 games. The sacrifice will be the same as it has been - some of the eye candy will be lost. But that part is up to the developer - Halo 2 is one example where they don't provide backwards compatibility. Since most developers and publishers are more interested in selling copies of games rather than OSs, I would imagine it to be the exception rather than the rule.

And you're right, the 'could' make DX10 XP compatible, but we don't know how difficult it would be. Apple could also have kept supporting and updating OS 9, but I imagine that XP is still going to get more attention than 9 got in the end.
The dork formerly known as nobody
---
MBP: C2D @ 2.66 Ghz | GeForce 9600M GT 256Mb | 8GB RAM | 120GB SSD + 500GB HD | 10.6.2 / W7 x64
PC: Q9550 | 6950 2GB | 8GB RAM | 80GB SSD + 750GB HD | W7 x64

#16 Huntn

Huntn

    Verbal Windbag

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4074 posts
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 13 December 2006 - 04:07 PM

View Postnobody, on December 13th 2006, 08:08 AM, said:

And you're right, the 'could' make DX10 XP compatible, but we don't know how difficult it would be. Apple could also have kept supporting and updating OS 9, but I imagine that XP is still going to get more attention than 9 got in the end.

But I'm not talking about an OS, just a component where they are trying to force people to the next OS. ;)

#17 PeopleLikeFrank

PeopleLikeFrank

    Uberspewer

  • IMG Pro Users
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2690 posts
  • Location:The Republic of Soviet Canukistan
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 13 December 2006 - 05:04 PM

View PostHuntn, on December 13th 2006, 05:07 PM, said:

But I'm not talking about an OS, just a component where they are trying to force people to the next OS. ;)

With modern OSs that use the graphics hardware of the computer extensively, the difference begins to blur. Certainly Vista is going to be heavily dependent on DX10 for it's functionality, just like OSX now draws heavily on OpenGL. Whether or not it works the other way round is debatable - certainly OpenGL is not dependent on Apple (though its implementation on Apple's OS is), but as mentioned above, Vista is using a different driver structure than XP. If DX10 is written extensively to match this new paradigm, then the difficulty to make it work in XP, either in feasibility or simply amount of time and effort required, could be quite great.

I'm still not saying MS couldn't do it - but given that MS has been hobbled for years by trying to make everything backwards compatible and supported almost back to Windows '95, I can understand that they're devoting somewhat more effort to get people onto the new platform than they are to making their current technology work on the old ones.

Besides, the analogy I used still holds - if MS is working to add features from Vista into XP, then they're supporting the old OS, the same as Apple would be if they kept working on OS 9. Every OS these days is a collection of components, so one can't really say that they're just working on a component, not the OS.

Where I unconditionally agree is on the subject of Halo 2 - there's no reason why it needs DX10, and it seems like a cheap shot to deny it to XP users (given that they're going to be upgrading sooner or later anyway).
The dork formerly known as nobody
---
MBP: C2D @ 2.66 Ghz | GeForce 9600M GT 256Mb | 8GB RAM | 120GB SSD + 500GB HD | 10.6.2 / W7 x64
PC: Q9550 | 6950 2GB | 8GB RAM | 80GB SSD + 750GB HD | W7 x64

#18 Smoke_Tetsu

Smoke_Tetsu

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3318 posts
  • Steam Name:Tetsu Jutsu
  • Steam ID:smoke_tetsu
  • Location:Cyberspace

Posted 13 December 2006 - 06:19 PM

View Postnobody, on December 13th 2006, 04:04 PM, said:

Where I unconditionally agree is on the subject of Halo 2 - there's no reason why it needs DX10, and it seems like a cheap shot to deny it to XP users (given that they're going to be upgrading sooner or later anyway).

Well, like I said.. it wasn't even a DX10 game on the Xbox. The only technical reason I can think of would be if they want for a unified Xbox live experience with live anywhere that can't be had in XP... because as far as I know they aren't putting live anywhere on XP either.
--Tetsuo

Alex Delarg, A Clockwork Orange said:

It's funny how the colors of the real world only seem really real when you viddy them on the screen.

the Battle Cat said:

Slower and faster? I'm sorry to hear such good news?

Late 2012 27 inch iMac, Core i7 Quad 3.4GHz, 16GB RAM, Nvidia GeForce GTX 680MX 2GB, 3TB HDD - Mavericks

Late 2009 27 inch iMac, Core i5 2.6GHz, 12GB RAM, ATI Radeon 4850HD 512MB, 1TB HDD - Mavericks

Mac Mini, PowerPC G4 1.4Ghz, 1GB RAM, Radeon 9200 32MB, 256GB HDD - Leopard

Dell Inspiron 1200 Notebook: 1.2GHz Celeron, 1.2GB RAM, Intel GMA915, 75GB HDD - Ubuntu

Generic Black Tower PC, Dual Core 64-bit 2.4GHz, 4GB RAM, GeForce 9600 GT 512MB - Windows 7


#19 Huntn

Huntn

    Verbal Windbag

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4074 posts
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 17 December 2006 - 05:35 PM

View Postnobody, on December 13th 2006, 05:04 PM, said:

With modern OSs that use the graphics hardware of the computer extensively, the difference begins to blur. Certainly Vista is going to be heavily dependent on DX10 for it's functionality, just like OSX now draws heavily on OpenGL. Whether or not it works the other way round is debatable - certainly OpenGL is not dependent on Apple (though its implementation on Apple's OS is), but as mentioned above, Vista is using a different driver structure than XP. If DX10 is written extensively to match this new paradigm, then the difficulty to make it work in XP, either in feasibility or simply amount of time and effort required, could be quite great.

I'll always wonder if the new driver structure is for real improvements or just a means of forcing you to buy Vista...

#20 bobbob

bobbob

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3367 posts

Posted 18 December 2006 - 10:55 PM

View PostHuntn, on December 17th 2006, 05:35 PM, said:

I'll always wonder if the new driver structure is for real improvements or just a means of forcing you to buy Vista...

It's both. What drivers are loaded means little to the XP kernel, and DX10 can run as easily alongside DX9 as OpenGL can since they're not stupid. The only reason DX10's Vista-only is they want someone to pay for the upgrade, and the only reason games like Halo won't be DX9-compatible DX10 games is because they want someone to pay even if they don't want an upgrade. Apple's OpenGL updates tend to force the same options on Mac gamers.