Bullets 'n' Babes

Remember this is based on Beta Windows 7 (a crucial point) but WOW, check out how fast it is:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3236

It even beats XP, something Vista can never manage.

Also:

Windows 7 Beta 1 Review:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3223

*Skim reads articles*

Wake me up when someone benchmarks some games.

It is only an early Beta benchmark and is only intended to give a rough idea of how things will pan out. Usually OS's get faster when in RTM stage not slower though.

You shouldn't need to skim read it, it's not very long.

I take it games still run better on XP then? What about DX10, isn't that flaky on XP?

bradavon wrote:It is only an early Beta benchmark and is only intended to give a rough idea of how things will pan out. Usually OS's get faster when in RTM stage not slower though.

Thank you Cpt. Obvious.

I take it games still run better on XP then? What about DX10, isn't that flaky on XP?

You already know that I'm still running XP, there's been absolutely no reason for me install Vista. Also DX10 doesn't exist under XP, full stop. Noticeable difference between DX9 and DX10 in 85% of DX10 games is so minuscule that it's not worth bothering with. DX9.0c still performs better in most cases.

STALKER: Clear Sky and Cryostasis: Sleep of Reason are probably the only games that actually make good use of DX10. But I've got a huge back catalogue games before I get to S:CS (including STALKER 1) and Cryostasis has yet to be released in English yet (only available in Russian for the time being).

Both of those aforementioned titles are developed by former Soviet bloc countries. The growing gaming industry in Eastern Europe is very PC-centric unlike the West where consoles are now market leader, thus most of the technologically bleeding edge titles are coming from there. Western developers are focusing on consoles, that are equivalents of high-end PCs from 2005.

EvaUnit02 wrote:Thank you Cpt. Obvious.

You were the one asking for Games to be compared when it's only a rough article in the first place .

You already know that I'm still running XP, there's been absolutely no reason for me install Vista.

I'd wager there is but I guess it depends how good Games run on Vista now?

Windows 7 is shaping up well. They've made loads of tweaks to aid speed and productivity. XP is already dated compared to Vista, this is even more.

bradavon wrote:

You already know that I'm still running XP, there's been absolutely no reason for me install Vista.

I'd wager there is but I guess it depends how good Games run on Vista now?

You would lose that wager, I'll say it again, thus far there's been absolutely no reason for me to switch to Vista. ~85% still run better under DX9, even though both Vista and its device drivers are quite mature now.

As I said, the the visual differences between 85% games that support both DX9 and DX10 rendering paths is so minimal that it's not worth bothering with. The differences are akin to comparing a Sony Superbit transfer to that of the standard edition; under normal circumstances you wouldn't notice and at the end of the day it's trivial nitpicking.

In reality the amount of DX10 games that actually show substantial visual improvement you can very likely count on one hand and I'm probably only interested in two of those.
-STALKER: Clear Sky I'll likely play sometime this year, but not in the immediate future. Cryostasis: Sleep of Reason
-Cryostasis: Sleep of Reason ain't out in English yet and I probably don't have the GPU muscle to play it adequately on high detail settings anyway.

The rest of the titles which are immediately noticeably better DX10 rendering paths would've been for marketing reasons, to push sales of Vista, by having their DX9 modes purposely crippled. The big example of this is Crysis, the highest graphical detail settings were supposedly DX10 only, but it turns out that the game's DX9 mode was capable of 95% of those features - accessible through configuration file tweaks. There was also supposedly DX10 only Multiplayer servers, but again a DX9 client could access those said servers using config tweaks.

DX10 failed to take off with consumers, the fact that Windows 7 ships with DX11 is proof of this. DX11 support for Vista will definitely come, but I'd imagine that a lot of people whom haven't already upgraded to Vista aren't going to at that stage.

Windows 7 is shaping up well. They've made loads of tweaks to aid speed and productivity. XP is already dated compared to Vista, this is even more.

Indeed, I've already read reports of a couple games (eg Far Cry 2) that run better under the Win7 beta than they ever did in either Vista or XP.

You would lose that wager, I'll say it again

Remember I said:

"I'd wager there is but I guess it depends how good Games run on Vista now?

There are many things in Vista (some small but they make a difference) that easily beat XP BUT it depends how well Games run for you on Vista.

DX10 failed to take off with consumers, the fact that Windows 7 ships with DX11 is proof of this.

More so: Vista died, so DX10 too. DX10 would've taken off if Vista had.

Unless I've missed something, you've not said anything worse against Vista just that it doesn't run any better on Vista. Meaning you'd not lose out, no? That said you may as well wait for Windows 7 now. IMO:

1. You want a new PC now - Get Vista without question
2. You're happy to wait: Stick with XP - Then upgrade to Windows 7

bradavon wrote:

You would lose that wager, I'll say it again

Remember I said:

"I'd wager there is but I guess it depends how good Games run on Vista now?

If you were speaking in general, then you should've of said so. It came as if you talking about my situation specifically.

Just to clarify, XP does absolutely everything that I both want and need. I'm entirely happy with it, hence I've seen no real reason to upgrade, full stop. You aren't going to convince me otherwise. I don't need Vista's additional security because I'm not ignorant nor thick, I possess common sense and know how to properly maintain a computer. I'd imagine that this is true of a majority of power users too - thus it would've been okay if they disabled UAC.

DX10 failed to take off with consumers, the fact that Windows 7 ships with DX11 is proof of this.
More so: Vista died, so DX10 too. DX10 would've taken off if Vista had.

This maybe true, but when it comes to DirectX things aren't quite so clear cut. XP introduced DX9, but it was a dramatic technological leap over DX8.1. The shift from DX9 to DX10 is more incremental really, DX9 can do the majority of what DX10 is technically capable of, but DX10 was designed to do it more efficiently - it was built to be easier to develop for than DX9.

The naming of DX11 is more of a damage control marketing move, since it's a direct extension of DX10. If Vista had been successful, then DX11 would likely be called something along the lines of DX10.5. DX9 saw two major revisions during its lifetime, 9.0b and 9.0c. Each added support for significant advancements of shader model technologies.

Unless I've missed something, you've not said anything worse against Vista just that it doesn't run any better on Vista.

There are some older games that will have compatibility issues with the new architecture and would be a pain to get running. True, I can dual boot with XP, but it would be annoying to jump back and forth between OSes just for a couple of games that I may only play occasionally.

I have XP32 currently in dual boot with XP64, but I haven't used in it literally months. XP32 is just eating up HDD space.

DirectSound3D/DirectHAL was removed from Vista. The driver model was changed so that everything runs in software, programs dont't have direct access to the hardware level any more. This leaves ~a decade worth of catalogue games that use hardware mixing + EAX broken.

The workaround is to use a DirectHAL->OpenAL wrapper, OpenAL is a third party API that can still give software access to the hardware directly. While Creative's ALchemy wrapper has been pretty successful, it's definitely not an absolute solution.

EvaUnit02 wrote:If you were speaking in general, then you should've of said so. It came as if you talking about my situation specifically.

I was but anyway it's not important.

EvaUnit02 wrote:Just to clarify, XP does absolutely everything that I both want and need.

Of course but then so did Windows 2000 and I doubt many would want to run that now. Why? Because XP takes it that one step further, as does Vista.

EvaUnit02 wrote:I'm entirely happy with it

I was before I started using Vista, now it seems dated (but snappier).

EvaUnit02 wrote:I don't need Vista's additional security because I'm not ignorant nor thick, I possess common sense and know how to properly maintain a computer. I'd imagine that this is true of a majority of power users too - thus it would've been okay if they disabled UAC.

That's what many power users think but they're wrong. Running a system 24/7 using a Full Administrator account is uber dumb. There's only so much people can do or Security software can do before one day (in theory anyway) something will get in without us knowing it.

Many threats considered high on XP are considered low or moderate on Vista. Why? Because they cannot do damage if they get in anyway.

It still amazes me the amount of so called IT experts who turn off UAC without reading up on it in the slightest. As I keep saying it's far more than just the prompts. Besides setting UAC to Silent mode fixes the prompt issue anyway. I to run precisely 2 (maybe 3) programs as Administrator (run being Command Prompt because I choose to run it this way), showing me you really don't need to run the vast majority of software as Administrator to run properly anyway.

If Power Users bothered to learn what UAC really is they'd appreciate it a lot more.

Of course this needs to be compared against how much malware actually manages to get into the average home PC with up-to-date Security software. In about 15 years I've had about 4-6 malware, all quickly stopped by my security software. That still isn't really the point though, why run an insecure system to start with?

EvaUnit02 wrote:This maybe true, but when it comes to DirectX things aren't quite so clear cut. XP introduced DX9, but it was a dramatic technological leap over DX8.1. The shift from DX9 to DX10 is more incremental really

I'll bow to your infinite knowledge on this one. It interests me not.

EvaUnit02 wrote:There are some older games that will have compatibility issues with the new architecture and would be a pain to get running.

Are they "killer apps"? If so fair enough.

EvaUnit02 wrote:True, I can dual boot with XP, but it would be annoying to jump back and forth between OSes just for a couple of games that I may only play occasionally.

Definitely. I'd never dual boot permanently.

EvaUnit02 wrote:I have XP32 currently in dual boot with XP64, but I haven't used in it literally months. XP32 is just eating up HDD space.

I plan to go 64-Bit with Windows 7. It's a right pain to get an OEM installed 64-Bit code (or at least it was when Vista came out), they were all 32-Bit. Plus I didn't want driver/software problems, now Vista has been out 2 years this shouldn't be an issue. I don't run any ancient hardware anyway. It's all 2 years old or newer (except my keyboard/mouse but they'll obviously work).

My mobile is much older than 2 years but there's a Windows Mobile Device Center 64-Bit and I hope to have a new Windows Mobile 7 mobile phone by then anyway.

Next time I will be buying an OEM DVD separately so will buy Windows 7 Home Premium 64-Bit (there will be no Ultimate with Windows 7). I understand (unlike XP 64-Bit) you must provide 32-Bit and 64-Bit Vista drivers to have the Vista certified logo on your hardware and as Vista drivers will be completely compatible with Windows 7 I shouldn't have driver issues running it.

I understand Photoshop Elements and Kaspersky Internet Security are buggy under Vista 64-Bit. Hopefully they'll iron those out by the time I get Windows 7, otherwise I cannot see any problems.

A question for you Eva: Do you need more RAM under 64-Bit or will the same amount be fine?

I currently have 2Gb and it's perfectly fine on my 32-Bit Vista. I'd prefer sticking with the same amount under 64-Bit but will upgrade to 4Gb if I have to.

bradavon wrote:That's what many power users think but they're wrong. Running a system 24/7 using a Full Administrator account is uber dumb. There's only so much people can do or Security software can do before one day (in theory anyway) something will get in without us knowing it.

Many threats considered high on XP are considered low or moderate on Vista. Why? Because they cannot do damage if they get in anyway.

It still amazes me the amount of so called IT experts who turn off UAC without reading up on it in the slightest. As I keep saying it's far more than just the prompts. Besides setting UAC to Silent mode fixes the prompt issue anyway. I to run precisely 2 (maybe 3) programs as Administrator (run being Command Prompt because I choose to run it this way), showing me you really don't need to run the vast majority of software as Administrator to run properly anyway.

If Power Users bothered to learn what UAC really is they'd appreciate it a lot more.

I was talking about within a HOME environment. Business settings are an entirely different matter, your points all absolutely ring true there.

I personally would be fine running as full administrator on my home network. Murphy's Law has little bearing there.

Of course this needs to be compared against how much malware actually manages to get into the average home PC with up-to-date Security software. In about 15 years I've had about 4-6 malware, all quickly stopped by my security software.

And when shit happens this quoted example ring true.

That still isn't really the point though, why run an insecure system to start with?

A system running all current Microsoft Critical Updates + fully-updated GOOD security software that covers all bases - anti-virus, firewall and spyware - ain't an insecure system.

brad wrote:

EvaUnit02 wrote:There are some older games that will have compatibility issues with the new architecture and would be a pain to get running.

Are they "killer apps"? If so fair enough.

Yes, but in the arthouse film sense, not the Michael Bay blockbuster. All the truly great games were made ~a decade ago.

I understand Photoshop Elements and Kaspersky Internet Security are buggy under Vista 64-Bit. Hopefully they'll iron those out by the time I get Windows 7, otherwise I cannot see any problems.

RE: Kapersky, it they don't release a fully compatible x64 solutions then there are alternatives are just as good, if not better. Agnitum Outpost Firewall is one of the best and everyone praises NOD32 anti-virus, but I've never tried the latter.

A question for you Eva: Do you need more RAM under 64-Bit or will the same amount be fine?

You'll be perfectly fine with 2GB. 4GB is only really the standard with gamers and professional designers. 8GB is absolute overkill and totally useless unless you're doing a lot of 3D work or video editing, ditto for quad-core CPUs.

Kaspersky Internet Security installs and runs on a 64-Bit system but it's a 32-Bit engine, which some have said is the root of the problem. Kaspersky also make modifications to the kernal which of course 64-bit Windows doesn't allow.

If I cannot get Kaspersky Internet Security to work, my next choice would be Esset Smart Security (i.e - NO32 Internet Security). I understand that has a fully 64-Bit engine. I do really like Kaspersky software though, so hopefully I won't have to get rid. Although AVG v8 is a lot better than it used to be I still find it poor by comparison.

I also have licences codes until 2010/2011, some free after I complained my code expired before it should have (IMO). Regardless if it doesn't work I would still change. I dumped the awful ZoneAlarm Internet Security with still 6 months left on my license. At the end of the day I only pay £15 a year for the code and sometimes less if I get a multi-year licence.

You'll be perfectly fine with 2GB. 4GB is only really the standard with gamers and professional designers. 8GB is absolute overkill and totally useless unless you're doing a lot of 3D work or video editing, ditto for quad-core CPUs.

Thanks, perfect then.

The most power hungry thing I do is run Photoshop Elements but that's only intensive when I've come back from holiday and have lots of photos to process (which is only 1-2 times a year). Otherwise I'm only working on 1-2 photos. So in other words. I don't do anything power hungry really at all.

My laptop only supports up to 4Gb. I specifically went for it because at the time (in my price bracket) most laptops only went up to 2Gb which left me for no future proofing. Hopefully Toshiba will release a BIOS upgrade if I ever need more but so far they haven't. Anyway I'm not bothered. I've done roughly the same things on my PC for years now and seeing as I'll be running Vista or Windows 7 for years to come 2Gb will be fine.

In other words, by the time I actually need more than 4Gb I'll need to buy a new laptop anyway.