Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Da Dego, 15 Jan 2007.
I've had a job since August of last year....
64-bit enhancements to Far Cry? Where at? I'd love to be proven wrong, but unfortunately I don't see that happening. I mean, sure there may be some cases where it's faster, but nothing revolutionary. Shuffling around numbers that are twice as big on the CPU takes more time...I'm not sure if the issue has been addressed yet, but in many cases 64-bit was slower because of cache issues, among other things. A CE or something could tell you more than I, it's been a while.
lol i didn't know =P but id still like to know who gave you it =P
Thanks for the read HellRazor. The only reason I planned on buying Vista was for DX10 to play games such as Supreme Commander, but such games also run on DX9, ie, Windows XP.
After reading that article, I'm now seriously opt'ing out of buying a DX10 power house in the coming months,(I was thinking of dual booting vista & XP). Instead, I think I'll go for a much cheaper DX9 machine with winXP that I KNOW all of my software will run on with out drama's.
Being a hobbiest musician myself, I NEED things like Cubase and Soundforge to work, no if's or buts, or degradations.
Well since I can't use the optical out, I won't be using the disks. Content protection? Nope, just screwing the average consumer, and takes a couple trillion of my CPU cycles.
Basically half the "problem" with vista is the RIAA/DRM, if this cr*p wasn't around Vista would not have to do all the downscaling and stuff like that.
So basically the average consumer gets screwed and and self respecting bit-techer just goes around it.
There will be ways around it.
I for one will be getting Vista X86_64 as it is the future of computing.
I plan on going 64 bit Linux since if it wont work with the OS anyway, why not make it harder to get stuff to work?
Then, when I have to, Vista will be purchased in 64 bit form. For me, it's XP32 until 64 bit is widely available. Since Vista is expensive why not wait until you can get 64 bit and not miss out on anything?
Eidt, just read that link... content protection? Wtf? Makes me want to set fire to the new MS office their building over here...
That article about "Microsoft's suicide note" is such a load of rubbish. Here's a pertinent excerpt from the one I just linked to:
First of all there are 2 major markets. Business & Home use.
In average Business Enviroment 64bit OS create a huge problem. Most of the applications on this sector are all 32bit, Printing hardware (I'm not talking about USB/LPT printers here) has near to nill support or drivers. And ofc is the actual software cost and compability with the other machines. Regarding Vista (either 32 or 64bit), I feel sorry for the admins who will be asked to do that job.
In home use ( many of the people above talk about) Vista is only DX10 gaming. End. If someone can find a critical difference in operation between XP and Vista let me know. The GUI (Aero, gadgets bar, etc) are only for showing off and drinking your system resources. You can do the same job easily with XP without them.
Regarding 64bit vista, even if you want them for DX10 gaming, you need to wait around 6 months from now for Nvidia drivers on 8800. And IF they come out. As Nvidia said last week they have serious issues to write the 64 driver and they will focus on the 32bit one first to publish it and update it frequently. Until they feel happy they will not go 64. And we are talking about Nvidia here. Not a smaller company who need to spend a lot of money to write their drivers for a printer or a modem.
Based on 20 years of experience in the area Vista will have a very slow take off and there are 70% chances to become flop like Windows Me. Especialy when the games carry on coming on DX9 for the years to come or we have Cedega using DX10 Think that we are not talking about Windows 98/Me -> XP transition. That was a big jump forward. But we cannot say the same for XP -> Vista.
When I built my new PC early this year, I got my new Home XP 32bit, with upgrade coupon to Vista. I have the DVD now and the licence, but I don't install it yet since Nvidia doesn't have publish any drivers for my 8800GTS and there aren't any games to use DX10. So I wait
Maybe I'm being pessimistic, but I think we'll see the death of the PC within our lifetimes. Hopefully, it's death will bring about a new and improved PC/OS/Software/Content/Hardware infrastructure. Well, here's to hoping because dark times are ahead...
First of all, I'm not sure why everyone is so happy to lap up the alleged bad news in that article. It's interesting and it's certainly food for thought if it's true, but I'll wait to hear it from more reliable sources before I react. I'll leave the knee-jerks to everyone else.
And while I agree that there is no overwhelming need for anyone to immediately upgrade to Vista, whether they are a home or business user, let's not kid ourselves that Vista is merely DX10 with DRM.
There has been a complete security overhaul which, so far, looks worthwhile... though it's early days yet. There has been a re-organisation of the UI and navigation structure, which many seem to think is also worthwhile. Not just pretty but actually having a functional benefit.
People think Aero is just for sugar-coated desktops. Aero will improve the performance of everybody on these forums. We all have 128MB+ DX9 gfx cards that will take the load of rendering windows off the CPU on onto the card itself. This is a tangible performance benefit. In XP, your nuclear-powered, ****-off-a-shovel DX9 card is sitting twiddling it's thumbs. To quote Marvin the Paranoid Android: "Brain the size of a planet, you ask me to open a door?"
It's fair enough discussing the benefits/pitfalls of early-adoption of Vista x64, but getting tiring hearing the same lines trotted out.
"I'm sticking with XP forever" - No you'll be on Vista/OS X/Linux within a couple of years.
"Ha Ha! This is the final nail in Microsoft's coffin!" - No it's not. They will continue making obscene amounts of cash from all of us for some time to come.
"I'll just wait until someone hacks DX10 to work on XP." - Not in your lifetime, mate.
I planned on getting a DX10 card for Crysys but after reading into it I think it will be months and months after Crysys is released before Vista is worthy of 'mainstream' use and the thot of using Vista at work within the next 2 years is just making me LOL
Are you sure about this? I wonder if MS won't consider going from 32 to 64 bits and "upgrade" and charge the customer accordingly...
I'm soooooo tempted of going that route...damn you Bioware and those with great games coming for PC...if it weren't for you, I would have an iMac at home long time ago.
Retail editions of Vista have 32 and 64bit editions on the DVD.
But seriously...how big is the load of rendering an XP desktop for a modern CPU? My X2 (or my office's Pentium IV) is totally responsive, even with some heavy multitasking going around. Yeah, Aero needs the GPU to render all that eye candy, but in truth, they have just found a solution to an inexistent problem.
What worries me more is what the power consumption of a Vista desktop is going to be. Right now, I can be pretty confident that my home desktop is happily idling while downloading with Azureus and consuming only as much as needed electricity. But it scares me to think that I'll have a high consuming GPU sucking power even when I don't really need that graphical prowess, just because of Aereo.
Anybody knows if there's any benchmarks published regarding the power consumption of high end PCs + Vista?
Read into this a little less.
Vista has gone gold, so I would say that is a fairly good indication of whether it is ready or not.
Does 64-bit Vista work?
Yes, why then is the industry saying it's not ready?
Because they haven't made their hardware and software work with 64-bit. If anything the industry is lagging behind, they are the ones not ready for 64-bit.
I know, but they too have every version from Basic to Ultimate...and to get a valid license key for Ultimate if you have bought, say Premium, you need to shell some cash. What makes you think it will be different with 32 and 64 bit versions?
Think of all those things you do that take your CPU utilization up to 100%. Some of that is being used to render the screen.
And I take you haven't bothered reading *anything* about Vista yet? Including the improved power management? Presumably when you are downloading with Azureus, your monitor has powered down? How is this any different from XP?
You have a preconceived negative image of Vista, and you are looking for justification. Why don't you do some homework rather than following the inevitable nay-sayers like sheep.
How do we know? Because MS have said so and because early adopters have confirmed this.
I've been using the Vista native Audigy/Nvidia/ATI/ASUS drivers for almost all devices because the inbuilt drivers were better than the ones currently provided by each company.
Whose fault is that?
When you look round for Vista purchases, for example Home Premium.
You will be offered 3 different licenses.
As you can see the OEM licenses are expressly 32 or 64 bit, whereas retail is both, so you'll be getting both versions of the OS compared to just the one!
Nope, I don't, but txs for the gratuitous bash. I'm just curious and was asking a question. I have read my fair share of Vista articles, but most of my info comes from the Wikipedia entry, and Paul Thurrott's site. Unfortunately, none of them gave much consideration to power management, at least, last time I checked.
Btw, I have yet to make my mind on Vista. Reports, many times contradictory with each other, still come right and left every day, but until it actually ships and people can really try it, and until I read enough reports from trusted sites, I won't make any decision about acquiring it or not. I'm sorry of not being as smart as you and having everything as crystal clear regarding a 300-400€ software purchase.
Separate names with a comma.