Don't likes
1. Gaming sucks on vista
Reason: I used to get around 80 fps on Rise of nations (T&P) but on vista I now get less than 30 most times.
2. Dx10 Is totally useless right now
Reason: Well the point explains this. I mean why ship an OS with Dx10 if its getting no use and makes your
FPS go down in the end its more trouble than its worth.
3. Alot of startup programs. More than XP
Reason: While startup on XP may open up 40 or less processes I usually open up with 50-60 when I boot up my pc.

Likes
1. It looks nice
Reason: Well the colors and icons look crisp and neat, the menus looks sweet too.
2. The right to tell people you own the newest OS.
Reason: Well its always fun to rub it in when you got the newest Windows. (even if it does suck)
3. Newer games
Reason: New games promising better FPS and Dx10 usage and all around better gaming on Vista.

I have given thought on downgrading to XP and ive read that Microsoft is actually gonna make it easier to downgrade in the future (knowing that Vista is selling like crystal Pepsi). I just might have to take Microsoft up on its kindness and downgrade when things become easier.

So whats your thoughts on vista?

Nothing... I got XP and OS X... and they've been good to me.

I remember times when a game that was 3 years old played at double digits but that was before Vista
And I know its my fault for buying a Vista installed pc but I was swayed into it by the promises and this computers processor is decent.

Vista has a irritating security system when downloading zip files and all other files.

Zip files is worst, when extracting a file
you need permission to extract, so you need
to click to the map directory where you wanted to extract the files and drag the files from the zip to
the map directory...
It also annoying when you want to open any file, first a warning that the file could be a virus, and then
also another warning if you trust the file or not.
XP is better, but the XP was pretty idiotic when it comed out too...

I like Vista, and technicaly it has few things which will prove to be better than XP in the long run. The only thing I don't like about Vista, is that it is a resource hog and needs a decent PC to run it. Then of course if you are running games on it, then you need even higher specs.

It's still in it's infancy, but I think it will prove itself in the long run.

BTW, you can turn off all those anoying messages in the Control panel under the users options (I forget what it's called, UCL or AUCL or something). Only problem with switching it off is, if you are an admin on the PC (Vista handles users much more securely now and you are not an admin by default) it is a system wide disabling of the setting...this is not normaly an issue, unless you have a lot of family members using the PC and you don't want them fiddling....

3. Alot of startup programs. More than XP
Reason: While startup on XP may open up 40 or less processes I usually open up with 50-60 when I boot up my pc.
[/quote]

It isn't hard to optimize the start-up process.

You countered my complaints with good points as expected Ok then how do you go about optimizing the start up process? And I am being as patient as I can be but seeing my friends excel in performance using an older OS makes me mad Ive already turned off the parental controls which control those stupid messages about moving or deleting files, to me that was the worst thing when I first got this computer.

If you want more info about DX10, Aero, and other stuff, then you can always read the wikipedia.

As for the optimizing, there is probably freeware 3rd party program out there, Vista supported, where you get complete control over what processes are started when the OS boots up. Hell, maybe Vista has this in-built for what I know.

And don't feel bad about the bad performance, in a year or two, your friends will envy you for the performance you get. Assuming they still have XP at that time.

Alright ill get looking Good point ill just stick with vista and buy some more RAM since I'm on the border of recommended RAM for vista. Actually I think I can optimize startup programs through MSconfig

Well, maybe that has something to do with the low performance.

I think OS recommendations work like a threshold rather than a direct performance impact. If you don't reach that threshold, your performance will "skyrocket downwards", but if you exceed the threshold a fair bit, the total opposite will happen. Unlike in games where there isn't a threshold in that meaning, you get the performance based on the horsepower of the hardware.

Well everything Ive read about the performance problems in vista point to its need to have alot of RAM and the minimal you should have is at least 1GB which is what shipped with my pc so thats probably my problem.

I think 1.5 GB is the absolute minimum if you want to do any gaming with high graphics detail. 2 GBs is recommended and 3 GB would be a good future proof.

My new system is XP, cause Vista is still unstable and i just don't trust it. And the fact that DX9 games will ship with their DX10 counterparts makes it all the better. If i seriously have to upgrade, well, i'll decide when the time ever comes.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Well from a friend of mine who's friend works at ubisoft says is that for at least another year, they'll be shipping DX9 powered games, like in two boxes, 1 for DX10 and 1 for DX9 (stupid MS for making this so problematic).

Stupid MS? Who the fecking hell got the brilliant idea of releasing a DX9 and DX10 version of the same game seperately, when even a monkey with downs-syndrome could code support for both APIs in the same installation? FEAR supports both DX8 and DX9, STALKER has DX8 and DX9, CoD 2 has DX7 and DX9. So tell me, why can't a game have DX9 and DX10 support in the same installation? It seems very possible considering DX10 has three Direct3D renders, DX9 being one of them.

I should mention that the DX9 API of WinXP has backwards compatibility back to the very beginning as far as I know, while DX10 is a fresh start. But as I said above, the DX10 package has three Direct3D renders, one of them is DX9 as mentioned earlier, the very same one as used in WinXP.

When a game uses DX10, it will of course use D3D10 and get great performance if your card supports it. And of course because there are shitloads of optimizations and old code removed. But if you are in the unfortunate situation of not owning a DX10-compatible card, you simply switch to D3D9, better known as DX9. I'm pretty sure all developers will support DX9 along with DX10, it is common sense, naturally.

So my conclusion is: Why, oh why, do people always blame poor Microsoft for someone else's stupidity? Ubisoft chose to do an easy task the hard way. Microsoft, Windows Vista, or DX10, had nothing to do with that decision. It's pure stupidity.

hell yeah, same here.

Well they have to unless the want to give us DX10. Which by all means MS, give XP DX10.

That ain't gonna happen, though there are rumors that there will be a watered-down version of DX10 released for XP. But it's only a rumor.

But if you are using XP to play a DX10 game, then simply set the game to force DX9. You'd have to do the same if you are using Vista but don't have a DX10 video card.

I'm thinking about buying a DX10 one but there really expensive from what ive seen and I'm not made of money

The Geforce 8600 GT is DX10 and costs around $150. The 8800 GTS is down to the $350 area.

So they are going down in price very quickly.

How long would the 8600 GT last in terms of usefulness for gaming?

Not as much as my 7900 GTX or the almighty 8800s, but it's a great card for the price.

Thank god for my almighty 8800.

Your almighty 8800 will sooner than later get it's ass kicked by the next generation of cards, probably 8900s.

Nope, it'll get kick by some 9200 or 9800 that'll be out next year (or a year and a half) or something. I saw a thread on the Beyond Unreal Forums about it.

Still, the thing as of now, is way awesome.

In nVidia's case, a 9200 would be a very low-end, get it's ass kicked even by my card. However, 9800 is something that will be really really powerful.

Which video card company should I buy from? I already have an Ati x1600 pro but I'm looking to upgrade and since you guys know alot about which is better I'm looking for your opinion. And I don't have to worry about vista support since ATI has good vista support and so does Nvidia from what ive read.

If you want to go high-end, avoid the ATi's new X2000 cards, the Geforce 8800s use them to wipe their ass. Better wait for ATi to release something worthwhile.

See originally I was going to get a good nVidia card but out of cheapness my mom got the ATI because some guy at best buy told her it was better for gaming even though I paid 150$ for my x1600 and the nVidia online was around 130$ and proved better on benchmarks.