backtop


Print 155 comment(s) - last by yak8998.. on Jan 28 at 11:23 PM

mwave.com lists several editions of Windows Vista as in stock and ready to ship

Although the official launch of Windows Vista won't take place until January 30, that hasn't stopped some online retailers from making the operating system available early. mwave.com is listing three Vista SKUs on its website that are in stock and ready to ship.

The editions available include Vista 32-bit Home Basic OEM (Microsoft Part Number: 66G-00576) for $89.90, Vista 32-bit Home Basic OEM 3-pack (Microsoft Part Number: 66G-00613) for $268.90 and Vista 32-bit Business OEM (Microsoft Part Number: 66J-02289) for $139.90. As of today, there were no listings for Vista Home Premium or Vista Ultimate on the site.

Vista Home Basic, as its name implies, is the most barebones version of the operating system. It lacks the Windows Aero "Glass" UI, Windows Flip 3D and Live Taskbar Thumbnails. Vista Home Basic also only supports one physical processor (unlimited cores) while the other consumer editions of Vista support two physical processors (unlimited cores).

Vista Business, on the other hand, contains features not found on either Vista Home Basic or Vista Home Premium. These include support for Windows Shadow Copy, system image backup and recovery, Encrypting File System (EFS), the ability to join domains and access offline file/folder support.

The OEM versions of Vista listed on mwave.com's website are significantly cheaper than the retail pricing for Vista listed below:

  • Windows Vista Home Basic, $199/$99.95
  • Windows Vista Home Premium, $239/$159
  • Windows Vista Business, $299/$199
  • Windows Vista Ultimate, $399/$259

Customers are limited to two copies of Vista Home Basic OEM or Vista Business OEM on mwave.com's website. The operating systems must also be purchased with hardware for licensing reasons. In many cases, ordering a set of case screws or some other cheap piece of hardware will satisfy these requirements.

Updated 1/23/2006: NewEgg shows Vista Home Premium OEM in stock for $119.99. They also show Vista Ultimate OEM in stock for $199.

For images of the retail version of Vista Home Premium unboxed, you can check out Engadget's image gallery.




Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

HMMMM
By Mithan on 1/21/2007 3:41:22 PM , Rating: 2
I plan on buying it next week though I doubt I will install the 64bit version. Honestly, for now its just a more secure face lift for XP though obviously it has a lot more under the hood....

It will be a while before Vista only apps start showing up that take advantage of the guts of the thing is what I mean.




RE: HMMMM
By allst1 on 1/21/2007 4:05:50 PM , Rating: 3
I wonder how long more they will continue to support windows xp though. Seems like they're rather eager to push everyone on to the vista bandwagon.

I just hope developers keep windows xp alive, for the next few years or so. Some people have fined tuned their systems and they like it that way knowing that its how they would like their system to function.

With Windows Vista, all that goes out the door the moment you install it, plug in it to the modem socket, or try some old "tweak" from XP.

Besides being flashy and giving you a few features.
I think I'll wait for it to become mainstream and you need to really move ahead with the times. It will be pretty hard though to get people to move away from XP as there's not much that the system lacks, either in it's configuration or stability.

Besides that, there's just so many flashy applications that will do what vista does to your interface and desktop for a whole lot less and fewer resources.

The only way I see MS getting or rather shoving Vista down your throat is because of directX10 and gamers.


RE: HMMMM
By djcameron on 1/21/2007 4:44:15 PM , Rating: 3
If Vista is perceived as having greater security than XP, then it will sell like hotcakes.


RE: HMMMM
By Chadder007 on 1/21/2007 9:14:46 PM , Rating: 5
Concerning security, I wished that Microsoft wouldn't have bowed down to Symantec and McAfee as far as their Kernel goes, making it more accessible to them.


RE: HMMMM
By xphile on 1/22/07, Rating: 0
RE: HMMMM
By StevoLincolnite on 1/22/2007 4:01:29 AM , Rating: 2
And you know what beats all that? Common sense with the internet, Don't download "Trojan.exe" in an email thinking its safe, Dont look up porn with a whole heap of spyware, Don't goto a website that may say "www.Superultramegakillercrackzandwarez.com".
Seriously, I do not have a Virus scanner, Or Firewall, Or Adaware scanner, I have a separate box for all that, That I plug in every now and then, If I think I may have a virus or just wish to do check-ups, For instance earlier this morning I did an ad aware scan, for the first time in about 4-5 Months, And I only had 5 Cases, and they were negligible anyway. If your getting 50 thousand viruses and ad aware in a month, then SOMETHING is wrong. And Firefox also helps with alot of adaware also.
Its not Microsoft's fault That A lot of Malicious code affects windows, Its the idiots who like to take the exploits as far as they can.

McAfee and Symantec should never had access to the kernel, But thats life and ya gotta live with it. And in my Experience Norton is a useless bloated virus scanner, Haven't used McAffee, But I find that Kaspersky is the best bar none.


RE: HMMMM
By Christopher1 on 1/22/2007 5:21:30 AM , Rating: 2
You know, the porn thing is totally true. So is the crack website thing.

Those are the ONLY times that I have ever gotten a virus on my system, when I have been looking for porn or going to a crack site looking for a software key (something that I don't do anymore, since I found a website that gives heavy discounts for most softwares).

I also have to agree that most of the problems come from software applications have direct access to the Kernel of the system. Though, to be honest, I haven't seen ANY viruses that infect the kernel anymore, usually they more make startup entries and run that way.


RE: HMMMM
By Tyler 86 on 1/22/2007 8:55:57 AM , Rating: 5
Those even probably still run with kernel level privelages to accomplish what they want...

Symantec & Friends didn't need kernel access to secure the kernel, they were just being dicks.

Microsoft should have kept it on a tight leash.

You see, Symantec & Friends make money because you're afraid of viruses, and viruses continue to persist, whereas Microsoft makes money because they can sell you 'an upgrade' and compatible products...

If Symantec was really concerned with kernel security, they would have kept their yaps shut.

They have the same resourses as virus writers have, plus boatloads of money, and corperate clients... They don't need more than that.

Next sucker I hear praising Symantec better be for something slightly more realistic, like for buying out 'VERITAS Backup Exec' and making improvements or something else I wouldn't expect them to do, because they have so far done nothing more than make their products ridiculously difficult to uninstall if damaged as far as I can tell.


RE: HMMMM
By PrezWeezy on 1/26/2007 8:22:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When MS can release an operating system that goes a year without needing a security update...


That is a completely ignorant statement. There is a saying for people who like Mac and Linux "It's easy to be bulletproof when no one is shooting at you." And they still have more security updates every year than Microsoft does. XP is actually an extremely secure system. And Vista is even better. But remember, these people make a living off of getting around the firewall. You wont ever stop them forever. There is always a backdoor. And they sit there for hours and hours trying to find it. If you want a system that is completely safe, don't plug in to the internet. Other than that, it doesn't matter what you do, you will always have security issues. And Microsoft does an awesome job of keeping on top of it and patching the system (almost every time) before there are mass problems. If you stay updated, most of the time you wont get viruses at all. Spyware will still be out there, and Defender is good, but I like to use Spybot S&D along side and keep it up to date and immunized. I find that I never get any problems that way.


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: HMMMM
By bamacre on 1/21/2007 7:30:44 PM , Rating: 1
Uhh, last I heard, there are NO plans for Crysis on the Xbox 360. And the version of Far Cry that was on the Xbox, as I understood, was dumbed down.

Why pay $600 for an Xbox, when I can pay $400 for an 8800 GTS and just pop it in my system? There do seem to be more games for consoles, but I am a FPS fan, and those games play better on a PC anyway. Plus, I like being able to mod games ("hey, how did you get a Porshe in Vice City?") , and free on-line play is a big one in my book as well.

That said, I still won't upgrade to Vista, nor to a DX10 video card, until we see enough games available to make those upgrades worthy. I was a long time user of Win 2K, and I've only been on XP for about two years. Everything is working fine, so why upgrade now?


RE: HMMMM
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/21/2007 7:36:29 PM , Rating: 1
Where are you seeing $600 Xbox's at? They are priced at $299 and $399 (and Overstock routinely has Xbox 360 Premiums on sale for around $315).

That being said, a single Xbox 360 or PS3 will play all of your games for years to come without a single upgrade needed to take full advantage of game features/visuals. Can't say the same for the PC.


RE: HMMMM
By bamacre on 1/21/2007 9:07:08 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I guess I confused the PS3's $600 price tag.

What you say is correct, a console will play all the new console games for years without having to upgrade. But the games will only look better as much as the developers learn better coding, taking full advantage of the hardware. But, new PC games, with new PC hardware, will look dramatically better.

So, yeah, I guess PC gaming is more expensive, but with shorter quality cycles. But free online gameplay, and cheaper games in general (at least that I remmeber), it does make a big difference. And, again, mods and game updates.

We can discuss this all again in three years, and we can compare PS3 and XBox 360 graphics with PC graphics. :D


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: HMMMM
By bamacre on 1/22/2007 2:03:32 AM , Rating: 2
LOL, learn to read. I said I didn't own an 8800 GTS. And I also already stated that console game developers would better learn to code for the hardware, making the games look better.

And I never said an 8800 GTS would make old games, like doom 1, look better. That's just nonsense.

Why do you feel the need to put words in my mouth?

The timing is off because we see two new consoles, the PS3 and XBox 360. My point, which you did not address, is the fact that 12 months ago, people were not bragging about their Xbox and PS2, and in three years, people won't be bragging about their Xbox 360 nor PS3.

You see upgrading a PC as a hassle, and an expense. I see it as an opportunity, and an option.

We've been playing games like Far Cry and Call of Duty for years while console owners are just now starting to see new generation games.

We've been playing games at 1600x1200 for years, while you guys have been stuck at, well, something a hell of a lot smaller.

Like I said, come talk to me in 3 years and tell me how kick-ass your xbox 360 is, LOL.


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: HMMMM
By timmiser on 1/23/2007 1:18:57 PM , Rating: 3
I think you've been living in your console world a bit too long. Developers don't code for 8800GTS, they code for the API but it's not about using the hardware properly. PC's have a little thing called settings and sliders and resolutions etc that scales with new hardware. It is obvious you don't have much experience gaming on a PC but already in today's games, a gaming PC offers much better graphics compared to an Xbox 360. Here is an example:

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6154261/index.htm...



RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/23/07, Rating: -1
RE: HMMMM
By FuzionMonkey on 1/24/2007 1:18:29 AM , Rating: 2
First of all, "Halo 2 on nice directx 8 graphics" isn't the only PC game. And all the XBOX EXCLUSIVES aren't that amazing. And there are about 1000+ PC Exclusives. So what. Can you download mods for half-life on your xbox? Can you play garrys mod? Can you play natural-selection?

And what about RTS games? Don't get too many of those on the xbox.

There are other game developers besides microsoft and they aren't making the games exclusive for xbox.

And have fun with xbox live. I like paying for something that should be free. Who the hell wants to pay for multiplayer.

Have fun with Gears of War and Lost Planet while I play Crysis, Unreal Tournament 2007, and Supreme Commander.

And HDTV? 1080p? Give me a break. Try 2560x1600. THAT is high resolution.


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/24/2007 3:51:31 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
"Halo 2 on nice directx 8 graphics" isn't the only PC game
yeah, but it's microsoft, the maker of operating system, who is humiliating gamers who use that operating system. this is what bothers me. I have nothing against epic or crytek, but microsoft releasing very old game as vista exclusive instead of a nice new game (GeoW for example) is totally insane
quote:
all the XBOX EXCLUSIVES aren't that amazing
I believe all the people who gave rave reviews and awards to Gears of War will definitely disagree with you


RE: HMMMM
By Tsuwamono on 1/24/2007 10:54:41 AM , Rating: 2
Gears of war is one game though. I have a 360 and im a hardcore PC gamer. My rig would require some people to take out a second mortgage.

My point is i see both sides of this arguement. Although ya its great to have a wickedly fast and overclocked PC its also nice to buy a console that has almost the same hardware as my PC for 1/4 the price. However, i prefer console to PC for racing games but i prefer PC for RTS and FPS just for starters.

Also keep in mind that ya we have been gaming in 1600x1200 for years. Its nothing big for us i have been doing it since i got my first GOOD graphics card(X850 XT back in the day). Infact i find Call of Duty(PC) looks better then Perfect Dark Zero on the 360.

Anyway, its true though that the games keep coming out for both PC and console but keep in mind PC hardware gets better. Right before the 360 came out nobody had the balls to say "Half Life 2 looks so sweet on XBOX compared to PC" because people would laugh at you. Just like right now i think GoW is far better looking then HL2 and that in my opinion is the best looking game for PC that we have out right now.

Stop fighting guys. Its a Cycle, 360 owners can expect better graphics with their 360 for a little while and then it halt right before the release of the next xbox while PC owners will see a fast increase in graphics until the point where its Photorealistic before the 360 gets there. Its the way of things. Look back at previous releases of consoles.


RE: HMMMM
By timmiser on 1/25/2007 6:20:07 PM , Rating: 2
To play Gears of War with a mouse/keyboard control would be the bomb!


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/26/2007 3:24:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
To play Gears of War with a mouse/keyboard control would be the bomb!
wake up, sleeping beauty, people ALREADY play it like crazy on their xbox 360 + xfps 360 mouse/kbd combos


RE: HMMMM
By Hare on 1/22/2007 2:23:04 AM , Rating: 1
At least I'm using 1680x1050 with games...


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/22/2007 3:06:17 AM , Rating: 1
not much compared to console's 1920x1080


RE: HMMMM
By sviola on 1/22/07, Rating: 0
RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: HMMMM
By bamacre on 1/22/2007 2:30:38 PM , Rating: 2
Not a fair comparison, as a 30in LCD monitor would do a higher resolution, 2560x1600.

I think you, along with others missed my original point. What I said was that PC gamers have been able to play games at high resolutions for years now, while consoles are just now able to do this. Like I said, PC gamers have been playing games like Far Cry and Call of Duty for years now, and console gamers are just now able to play new generation games.

I guess that is why you are all excited. :D


RE: HMMMM
By bamacre on 1/22/2007 2:32:23 PM , Rating: 3
And BTW, Halo sucks compared to other FPS's for the PC. ;)


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: HMMMM
By novacthall on 1/26/2007 3:43:57 PM , Rating: 2
Hey man, let's keep it civil. Curb the potty mouth, hm?


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/22/07, Rating: 0
RE: HMMMM
By bamacre on 1/22/2007 6:05:09 PM , Rating: 2
Why are you so stuck on Halo? Yes, you are seeing some good games, like Gears of War, now that the new consoles are out, but Vista and DX10 are not even out yet. DX10 is proof MS is committed to PC Gaming, in fact they have publically announced their commitment to PC gaming.

You know, MS needs something to keep the computer literate on Windows, i.e., keeping them from switching over to Linux, or even Mac. Gaming is ONE thing that keeps many from making an all-out switch.

Anywho, like I said, DX10 and Vista are not even out yet, well, at least for the most part. It is only a matter of time before we see news of future games coming out, not to mention games like Crysis. From what we have seen so far, Crysis will be a top-notch game, making full use of the highest-end video cards, and multi-core cpu's (last video I saw, it was running on, and makeing us of, a quad core cpu).

So, here we are, less than 12 months after the release of Vista, we will already have a PC game that the new consoles couldn't handle. And I'm not worried about being disappointed with Crysis, as Far Cry was everything it was supposed to be. And with DX10 optimizing things that were only capable with DX9, it won't be much longer until we see more games like Crysis for the PC.


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: HMMMM
By Tsuwamono on 1/24/2007 8:57:52 PM , Rating: 2
Gears of war would be difficult to run for most people in defense but i see your point.


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: HMMMM
By patentman on 1/21/2007 8:57:47 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
there are NO plans for Crysis on the Xbox 360


Might want to read the whole story from that article:

"The big news first is the PC game Crysis is coming to the 360. However, that PC game won’t be the same game as what we will see on the home console . Because Crysis will be running at DirectX10, the game would look inferior since the 360 can only do DirectX9 (as mentioned before). So, the developers are using the same universe that the PC game is set in, with some similar story elements, but the gameplay will be entirely different . The developers told the 1UP guys that they weren’t even going to try and replicate Crysis. This would be because the PC version will be running so much more stuff that the 360 couldn’t handle, and would be disappointing . They stated that the game needs to run deeper, with the physics and world needing to be constructed differently. They admitted that the 360 version may not be as “wow” as the PC version in terms of graphics. It’s not a port in any way, so if you bought both versions, you would still get two different experiences with the game. The developers Crytek are the same developers responsible for FarCry, so we could see a game similar (but hopefully better) to that."



RE: HMMMM
By Lakku on 1/22/2007 12:23:31 AM , Rating: 2
http://incrysis.com/crysis/index.php?option=com_co...

Hate to brake it to you, but that xboxic article is wrong and all rumor. Crytek has come out and said any rumor of Crysis in any form for any console is false. They nor anyone else is making a version for consoles. This article and interview was released to address rumors and in response to this xboxic article.


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/22/2007 1:34:05 AM , Rating: 1
well, ok, I stand corrected then, crysis won't make it to consoles soon. this makes vista look a little better for games, although big titles like halo 3 and gears of war on xbox make pc look not that good right now


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: HMMMM
By kamel5547 on 1/22/2007 12:05:24 AM , Rating: 2
RIght... because there are no games that are PC exclusive right?

Terrible argument there... even Microsoft has games it can't release to X-box....


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: HMMMM
By sviola on 1/22/2007 7:08:02 AM , Rating: 3
Your assumptions go against what Microsoft has stated last year. Have you heard about Games for Windows©? Yeah, Microsoft is investing a lot in gaming for Vista, so don't write stuff without doing some research before.


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: HMMMM
By HrilL on 1/23/2007 11:19:55 AM , Rating: 2
Halo 2 comes free with vista ult. So why would M$ want to invest millions into a new game they will be giving you with the OS? They want to make money off their new games and people will pay it for the better graphics. You need to learn to think before you post. No one is bragging about halo 2. I for one could careless if it came with windows or not.


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/23/07, Rating: 0
RE: HMMMM
By novacthall on 1/26/2007 3:57:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Halo 2 comes free with vista ult.

That's news to me, right there. I thought the only games Vista Ultimate came with were updated classic games and Texas Hold 'Em.


RE: HMMMM
By Lakku on 1/22/2007 12:35:04 AM , Rating: 2
Noone said PC gaming was cheap. It's not subsidized like the console, otherwise you'd be paying a lot more for the 360 and PS3 than they are charging for them now. But aside from that, yes, you pay once for the 360. You are also stuck with it, as it can never get more powerful and Gears of War is close to what the console can realize with its limited main and graphics RAM. Halo 3 will probably surpass GoW, but I doubt it will by much. PCs, when Crysis is released, will surpass consoles in terms of what games CAN look and play like. The PC has a huge advantage in system and graphics RAM, regardless of the presence of any embedded DRAM. PCs are already surpassing the consoles, but ultimately, it's best just to have all the platforms if possible. The 360 has it's place (I have every system but the Wii, can't find one and won't wait more then an hour) but PC gaming, if it can be afforded, will always have more potential.


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: HMMMM
By sviola on 1/22/2007 7:31:44 AM , Rating: 2
You need to slow down on your fanboyism. You're talking a lot of nonsense. First, who said there're no publishers on the PC? Also, there're a lot of great games on the PC (HL2, for instance) and many that sell more than any game for consoles (WoW, has sold over 8 million copies), and there're no royalties for publishing on the PC.

On pricing of console vs pc, this is also a stupid discussion, as the new consoles might be cheaper but you have to add in a $2000 HDTV to make the best out of them and also, I can bet at least 90% of american console gamer have a PC as well. So you're paying $2400 on a HDTV and xbox and also about $800 on a PC for internet browsing. That's $3200, the same as a high-end pc. Not mentioning that top PC games are cheaper than top console games (i.e., $60 for GoW against $50 on Supreme Commander).

On your assumption there won't be any good games beside Crysis for the PC, here is a hint:
Unreal Tournament 2007, Enemy Terrotory: Quake Wars, Hellgate, Bioshock, Stalker, Comand and Conquer III, Age of Conan, LOTR Online, among others.


RE: HMMMM
By epsilonparadox on 1/22/2007 10:10:40 AM , Rating: 2
Unreal Tournament 2007 (also coming out on the PS3), Enemy Terrotory: Quake Wars, Hellgate, Bioshock (also on the 360), Stalker (also on the 360), Comand and Conquer III (also on the 360), Age of Conan, LOTR Online, among others. So if half the games are coming out on the consoles, do I really need to spend $3200 to build a new system capable of running these games since I already own the aforementioned consoles, HDTV (which allows me to go view other things), and a $800 pc?


RE: HMMMM
By sviola on 1/22/2007 11:24:21 AM , Rating: 2
You might have misunderstood what I wrote. $3200 is the cost for having:

Xbox 360 - $400
HDTV 1080p - $2000
PC - $ 800 (includes PC, monitor and windows and it's to do office stuff and browse the internet and post comments on DT ;) )

That'd be $3200 (you can even change the PC to a 400 one and get 2800).

Now, take that $3200 for a PC is a top of the line PC (I mean really top of the line) and would allow you to do all the above (game, HD content - you can watch tv or movies in a pc - and browse the internet). If you already own the consoles, the HDTV and a $800 PC, you don't need to buy a top of the line PC, but you've already spent almost $4k (including the PS3) to play the same games you'd play on a cheaper high end computer.

By the way, by your post, if you a PS3 and a Xbox 360 you'll only play a few games from the list I posted.

My point was that $$ is not an excuse to dismiss a high end PC. If you like to play on consoles, that's fine, but don't say it's not worth spending money on a high end pc, cause you'll be spending the same ammount on consoles + HDTV, just say you like playing in consoles and that you prefer to play on the console.

Also, for the person who posted there're no interest in PC gaming, you should know that the games that sell the most are for PC (yeah, that's a surprise!!!) and are comprised of card games (of course the revenues of low budget games can't be compared to sales of 3 million $60 GoW.


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: HMMMM
By glennpratt on 1/26/2007 4:41:51 PM , Rating: 2
This is such an idiotic argument. You don't buy the TV for your Xbox 360 to play by yourself in your bedroom. You buy the TV to watch TV, watch DVD and play Xbox 360 in the living room with your friends. And you don't need a $2000 TV to enjoy it.



RE: HMMMM
By timmiser on 1/23/2007 1:25:34 PM , Rating: 2
This list brings up one important point not yet mentioned:

Unreal Tournament, Quake, Bioshock; Command & Conquer plus Call of Duty, Tom Clancy, and many of the other top games on a console, all started out as PC games first!


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/23/07, Rating: 0
RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: HMMMM
By Zapp Brannigan on 1/22/2007 5:41:11 PM , Rating: 2
yeah wow, you love your 360 woohoo!

Well, so do i, but there is no way in hell that i am gonna play bioshock, unreal Tournament 07, quake wars, stalker or any other fps on the 360 unless im forced to.

The joypad is just to crap.

Play any FPS on a pc with a 2000dpi mouse and after that, anything else is just so, so, slow and inprecise.

And don't get me started on RTS's, how the hell are you supposed to control a massive army with a joypad instead of a keyboard with any degree of control. Ain't gonna happen.

Plus clans and teamspeak work better on the pc, xbox live is decent for playing with few friends or complete strangers, but isn't complex enough for massive clan fights on COD2 or Battlefield.

Oh, and let's not forget that games just play better on pcs.
Eg. Oblivion, the loading times are horrendous, on my pc the loading screen appears when i enter/exit a town or dungeon but never while i'm in the wilderness and when it does it's only for 2-3 seconds. On the 360 it's seems to pop up every 5 minutes or so while i'm outside, and takes like 20 seconds.

and a lot of other people are like me and just enjoy playing games without any constraints that consoles impose.

And please stop wittering on about GoW, Halo 3 and Lost Planet. GoW is a decent 5 hour romp with very nice graphics but with limited multiplayer and now real reason to return to it after completion. Halo 3 ain't out for 10 months (at least) and Lost Planet is also a decent 7-8 hours romp with nice graphics for the first level until you realise that all the levels look the same.

If you wanna big up the 360, praise COD3 and R6:Vegas for their superb graphics, excellent single player and multiplayer modes (so i've heard), praise Crackdown for what looks like an excellent co-op mode and some original ideas (plus the Halo 3 beta), heck even mention that GTA4 is gonna be out on the system at the same time as the PS3, instead of a year later.

But come on, half life 2. That's already been released on the original xbox for christsakes, bringing that out now is as much an insult to the 360 as halo 2 is to vista. I finished that game over 2 years ago.


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/23/07, Rating: 0
RE: HMMMM
By slacker57 on 1/22/2007 4:21:56 PM , Rating: 2
Okay, so I skipped the second half of this thread because it was getting tediously repetitive, but, really this discussion has been going on for years and I just can never understand it. Why do so many people seem to think that PC gamers and console gamers must be exclusive from one another? I'm pretty sure that the hardware producers, for example, are not actively competing against one another. As a matter of point, given the fact that Nvidia and ATI produce the graphics hardware for the consoles anyway, they're probably not concerned if GoW is Xbox only and Crysis is PC only. There are going to be consumers for both platforms and they'll make their money either way. Obviously, they're not going to make Crysis for PC only if they expect no one will buy it because the graphics on Gears of War were so great. Why are we arguing about it? Get a PC to play the PC games you want to play and get a console for the console games you want to play.

And I just had to point this out:

quote:
now imagine these guys like crytek - they are going to publish best game ever on PC - who's gonna be interested in that? noone.


Is it me, or did you contradict yourself in the same sentence? You basically said, "who's going to be interested in the best game ever? No one." What kind of sense does that make? I feel like you're a little too wound up and all of your posts read the way this sentence did.


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: HMMMM
By BPB on 1/23/2007 1:41:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
you misunderstood me - I said basically this - Microsoft would KILL to publish Crysis on Xbox ONLY. Sony would KILL to publish Crysis on PS3 only. NOBODY would kill to publish Crysis on PC ONLY. BECAUSE _NOBODY_ is interested in making PC exclusives. why? because there's no incentive - microsoft benefits from selling xbox, sony benefits from selling ps3, nobody benefits from selling PC (besides China of course, and China does not make triple A games, unfortunately). Got it? Do I make myself clear?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't somebody doing just that? Publishing Crysis on the PC only?!! So doesn't that make your statement sound rather silly? According to your logic the publisher must be a pretty ding-dang stupid company for doing this. But they're not stupid. Publishing on the PC only gives a HUGE incentive for gamers to upgrade to Vista, and many, many will because of this game. Understand the psychology of many gamers; they HAVE to have the best they can afford. They simply have to. It's who they are, it's what they are. I can't imagine how big this game will be, but if the gameplay itself is good, then gamers will line up to buy it because on top of good gameplay they'll have the best looking game ever made to date. So there's your incentive. Going forward, AFTER the game is out and many have upgraded, you can make a stronger case for your argument, but not now, not with this title. This title will generate much income for those involved, particularly MS. It may be a god-send for MS, though really it won't be because MS itself generated it.


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/23/2007 2:58:03 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Publishing on the PC only gives a HUGE incentive for gamers to upgrade to Vista, and many, many will because of this game. Understand the psychology of many gamers; they HAVE to have the best they can afford. They simply have to. It's who they are, it's what they are.
Here's a million dollar question for you: why then MS decided to publish Halo 2 as Vista exclusive, not much more beautiful Gears of War? Is it because MS thinks gamers that want THE BEST as you say are going to line up to grab ancient Halo 2 that everyone played through in 2003?? Am I getting something wrong or is this game, Halo 2, something that you'd call "best of the best"? Are you serios??


RE: HMMMM
By BPB on 1/23/2007 3:43:22 PM , Rating: 2
Your reply has me befuddled. Again, you earlier said (replying to a different post):

you misunderstood me - I said basically this - Microsoft would KILL to publish Crysis on Xbox ONLY. Sony would KILL to publish Crysis on PS3 only. NOBODY would kill to publish Crysis on PC ONLY. BECAUSE _NOBODY_ is interested in making PC exclusives. why? because there's no incentive - microsoft benefits from selling xbox, sony benefits from selling ps3, nobody benefits from selling PC (besides China of course, and China does not make triple A games, unfortunately). Got it? Do I make myself clear?

You were speaking of Crysis, and I was speaking of Crysis. You, not I, said, "Microsoft would KILL to publish Crysis on Xbox ONLY", so my post was, for lack of a better term, Crysis-centric. Why do you bring up Halo 2? The big deal with Crysis is it's usage of DX10 and it's bleading edge use of PC gaming technology. Something like that takes time, more time than many non-developers realize (I myself am a developer). MS is not stupid, they knew and they know that Halo 2 for Vista is not going to generate incredible buzz. But they also know that Crysis will generate not only buzz, but added sales. Added sales meaning Vista sales as well as Crysis sales. Crysis is the product that's been started from scratch for DX10 and Vista. Did you think MS should have held off releasing Gears of War to prove the pro-PC gaming crowds point? To make it PC (Vista) only it would have meant a much longer development cycle, a much later release date. It may well have not come out until Crysis itself comes out. This way they got a great product out for the 360 and they will also get a great product out for the PC. It's a win-win for them. But again, I was talking about Crysis, because you were talking about Crysis. The bottom line is that that game will generate buzz and sales for it's producer, publisher, and MS.


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/23/07, Rating: 0
RE: HMMMM
By BPB on 1/23/2007 4:42:23 PM , Rating: 2
Crysis is PC only because MS wants it that way and is certainly paying to have it that way. It will generate Vista sales, so it behooves MS to do this. They may make more money off of Crysis than anybody else. Any game that comes out as Vista only yet would do well on a console is coming out Vista only because MS wants it that way. MS will want it that way because the game will boost either Vista sales or the Vista profile. And that's simply good business.


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/23/07, Rating: 0
RE: HMMMM
By BPB on 1/23/2007 8:17:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you have an alternative explanation of that that is as consistent as mine? I'm listening.

It's called money$. MS didn't become as huge as it is, and Bill Gates didn't become the richest man in the world, by being stupid. It's all about balance. MS has a vested interest in keeping BOTH platforms going strong. So it balances releases. GoW for 360, and Crysis for Vista no doubt makes monetary sense to MS. You may not see it, but how many times has MS been wrong when it comes to these matters? Sure, you can probably name a few mistakes, but there are way more successes. Some successes you know about, many you do not. I can't make it clearer than that. MS isn't just throwing a bone to the PC crowd, they are working hard to grow it even further with Vista, and Crysis will be the really big start.


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/23/2007 8:41:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
GoW for 360, and Crysis for Vista no doubt makes monetary sense to MS
See, this doesn't quite fit in the picture. They needed some nice killer launch title for Vista, to really push PC gamers to adopt Vista quickly, right? So it was in their BEST interest to release Gears of War right now and a Vista launch title - from the MONETARY point of view this is WAY better than re-releasing lousy four-year old Halo 2. I see Crytek as independent from Microsoft, it was Crytek's decision to make Crysis on PC only for now. On the other hand, if you look PURELY at Microsoft, just at them - they HAD A CHOICE - release nice hot game for Vista (Gears of War) or some old lousy game for Vista (Halo 2). What choice they made? It's obvious releasing Gears of War instead of ancient Halo2 would being them much more gamers and hence MONEY. But they consciously chose to IGNORE that possibility for Vista launch.

Here's an uber important question - why Microsoft chose shitty Halo 2 over Gears of War for Vista launch?

My version: MS is not very interested in gaming for Windows, so they got some lousy stuff, slapped it together and said "eat this, you have no choice". Xbox - it's all different, Xbox gets hot AAA releases from Microsoft/Epic/Bungie studios FIRST, so Xbox is a clear favorite as a gaming platform at Redmond, unlike Windows.

And your version is...?


RE: HMMMM
By BPB on 1/23/2007 9:05:10 PM , Rating: 2
You just don't get it. Do you know how hard it would have been to release GoW for Vista? By that I mean a GoW that takes full advantage of Vista. Vista's DX10 standards were a moving target for quite some time. The 360 standards have been set in stone for a very long time, Vista's for a very short time. Just look at how many companies don't even have drivers ready yet. Drivers are so much easier than a brand new game. You know, Crysis is not running late because the programmers are lazy, it's because it is hard work. If Vista was releasing with a more minor upgrade to DX9 then maybe you would see something major in the gaming world, but DX10 is practically as big a change in programming philosophy as it is anything else. It is a big, big change if you want to take full advantage of it. If you've ever tried programming for a moving target you know it isn't fun or easy. I'm sure nobody wanted to commit to a Vista release when they couldn't even be sure how they were going to code it. There's nothing else I can say on that. MS is NOT giving up on PC gaming, in fact I've no doubt they are expanding it. If you chose to believe otherwise then do so.


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/23/2007 9:16:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you know how hard it would have been to release GoW for Vista?
Well, could you then explain why Halo 2 for Vista is soo much easier to release than GoW? They are both DX8/DX9 level games, BOTH have NOTHING to do with DX10, so it's probably the same for MS which game to release, because DX9 was ALSO set in stone for a long time. So they have two games, one is DX9 (GoW) which they can release as DX9 for Vista, the other is DX8 (Halo 2) which requires some work to upgrade to DX9 before releasing it - and they chose to release the DX8 game with upgrade to DX9 instead of releasing DX9 Gears of War? Am I missing something here? What's the point in releasing older DX8 game with additional work of upgrading it to DX9 when you already have new hot DX9 game in your hands?


RE: HMMMM
By SigmaHyperion on 1/23/2007 5:03:49 PM , Rating: 2
You know, Gaming DOES exist out of the first-person-shooter.

Consoles are great (that's why I own just about every one ever made), and yes, most new games IN CERTAIN GENRES appear on consoles. But there are still, and for the forseeable future, always will be, games that exist on the PC over a console. Usually as a result of the interface "issues" (consoles CAN use keyboards/mice but it's not practical for most people to have that in front of their TV), but also development costs.

Real-Time Strategy games are still some of the best sellers out there. Yes, they've tried to come out on the console, and C&C3 is going to take another shot. But that is NOT the bread-and-butter for sales in that genre. The interface is just clumsy. Let me know when the Total War series from Creative Assembly appears on a console. Or Company of Heroes. Anything from Paradox -- Europa Universalis or Hearts of Iron. All the Tycoon series (the good ones). Anything by Wil Wright from Maxxis (where despite trying to port for generations now, they've all sucked in console form).

Those might not be the types of games that you like, and that's fine. But they each sell huge numbers of copies to those people that DO like them. If you play those types of games, the PC is _THE ONLY_ "prime gaming platform".

Independent gaming, at least until XNA really takes off, is still COMPLETELY PC dominated. And I'll roll the independent modding community into this same group. If HL had been a console-only release, the greatness that was/is Counter-Strike would never have existed. I now buy a lot of games FOR (or because of) the modding community. Consoles will never be able to experience superb independent gaming like Darwinia and DEFCON from Introversion or any of the other countless great indie games that come out for the PC every year. These people would never be able to make hugely innovative games that influence the industry in a console-centric world because the barriers to entry are just FAR too great. Lack of sales volume doesn't make them not "AAA titles" -- they make a very sizeable amount of cash considering the handful of people it takes to make them and the fact that almost all, if not all, the entire sale price goes straight to their pocket because they have 5 names in the end credits instead of 5 MINUTES worth of names of people that all need to be paid.

The PC is still the domain for the thinking man's games. And that's not a hit on console games or gamers (I probably play consoles at least as much as PC games) it's just the way that the market still lies.

Hands-down more games are released on PC everyday than on any other console. Maybe even every console put together. And, yes, a lot of those are crap. But most are at least decent, as evidenced by simply looking at the number of 8 or 9.0+ reviewed games on every platform. And they're usually cheaper than the same game on the console to boot, and, more importantly, the margins are MUCH bigger for developers.

The margins for a developer are two to three, sometimes even more, greater on PC than on a console. There's less people in the chain to take your royalties, no huge fees to pay for the "privledge" of developing a PC game like there is on consoles. As we move towards direct-download, the margins are EXPONENTIALLY greater than they are on console development and the barriers to entry are completely non-existant.

The WoW (*shudder*) expansion just sold 2.5 million copies in 24 hours. Those are sales that rival Halo 2 numbers. I might not like the game at all, but you can't see something like that and say that PC gaming is dead. Just PC gaming in certain genres.

What's better -- $4/unit on 1 million unit sold are $20/unit on 500,000? It's those type of economies that ensure that SOME developers will still whole-heartedly embrace PC gaming into the future.

And FWIW, I don't understand your focus on Halo 2. I don't see MS really bragging about Halo 2 as "Vista Gaming". I haven't seen them mention much at all about it. If anything they're pimping out FSX much harder than Halo 2. And Company of Heroes will probably end up being the first game (outside of FSX, not sure when they're releasing the DX10 patch for that) that supports DX10. And it is by all means a "AAA Title".


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/23/2007 8:28:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Gaming DOES exist out of the first-person-shooter
Absolutely. However 3D FPS seems to be locomotives of gaming industry, so who owns 3D FPS - owns the most sweet piece of the gaming market.
quote:
there are still, and for the forseeable future, always will be, games that exist on the PC over a console
Absolutely. I'm just afraid Xbox 360 will grab the sweetest piece of video game market with most money and PC will be second grade with lots of small game studios with inferior PC only games.
quote:
but also development costs
Development cost for console is lower because it does not require you to adjust game graphics for zillions of PC graphics cards. Less system configurations means less development money. Testing for countless versions of Windows and PC video cards/drivers is EXPENSIVE, compared to one configuration on console. See, console game development is actually CHEAPER ;)

Speaking of RTS - Company of Heroes is a very nice point, PC still is strong here. However the same trend could be observed with RTS - studios push for console, it starts with C&C 3 and then if they succeed - all the rest of RTS will follow, just like FPS is gone console way with Epic, Bungie, Carmack and others.

Okay, we'll see if interface issues will prevent RTS from moving on consoles, but you can see there's a strong pull from consoles, otherwise EA wouldn't port C&C to consoles again and again.
quote:
Independent gaming, at least until XNA really takes off, is still COMPLETELY PC dominated.
Correct, but XNA is there already, and one can pay $100 a year and publish their OWN little xbox 360 games. Without a need to waste money on expensive graphics cards on PC every year or so.
quote:
If HL had been a console-only release, the greatness that was/is Counter-Strike would never have existed
I bet otherwise - Gears of War is console only and you have millions of gamers killing each other online. Well, maybe when consoles didn't have online that was true but not anymore - consoles are up to PC, especially xbox, and if not above PC actually with xbox live and stuff
quote:
These people would never be able to make hugely innovative games that influence the industry in a console-centric world because the barriers to entry are just FAR too great.
Is paying $100 a YEAR too much to be able to publish your own Xbox 360 games? Are you kidding or what?
quote:
Hands-down more games are released on PC everyday than on any other console. Maybe even every console put together. And, yes, a lot of those are crap. But most are at least decent, as evidenced by simply looking at the number of 8 or 9.0+ reviewed games on every platform. And they're usually cheaper than the same game on the console to boot, and, more importantly, the margins are MUCH bigger for developers.
All this was true until XNA appeared. With XNA things are MUCH different now. After I tried out XNA I realized why exactly PC gaming as it was in its glorious past is dead. It is because MS wants it dead. You can see how MS pushes it with XNA and everything else (all these xbox exclusives and xbox-only studios/deals they got like Epic and Bungie) - it behooves MS to have as much gaming as possible not on Windows but on Xbox, and this is why PC is doomed as gaming platform. OK, we'll see how interface issues with RTS will play out but I have bad feeling they just gonna enable keyboard and mouse in Xbox OFFICIALLY and this will be the moment when PC gaming is finally DEAD, 'cause there will be NO restrictions whatsoever for RTS or anything.
quote:
The margins for a developer are two to three, sometimes even more, greater on PC than on a console. There's less people in the chain to take your royalties, no huge fees to pay for the "privledge" of developing a PC game like there is on consoles. As we move towards direct-download, the margins are EXPONENTIALLY greater than they are on console development and the barriers to entry are completely non-existant.
Yeah, EXACTLY, this is WHY XNA is there! MS knows what it's doing, I bet they will introduce the world's first game download service, for xbox only of course. It'll be open for XNA as well of course, for same $100 a year or so - speak of low margins THEN, hehehe :) Yeah, now XNA just starting to take off, but I see the DIRECTION it is going to, and the direction is towards the massive tombstone with "PC Gaming" inscribed on it :)
quote:
The WoW (*shudder*) expansion just sold 2.5 million copies in 24 hours. Those are sales that rival Halo 2 numbers. I might not like the game at all, but you can't see something like that and say that PC gaming is dead. Just PC gaming in certain genres.
Sure PC gaming is not dead YET. I'm speaking of the trend. Do you see the trend with MS pushing gaming towards Xbox with everything it can with XNA and all teh exclusive deals with Epic and others? Do you see ANYONE pushing gaming towards PC? I wish I saw at least one major publisher whos really really interested in PCs only, but there are none. Since the moment MS went console way where teh more money is - PC was doomed. It's a long process, yes, but honestly after the release of XNA for indie xbox gaming I can't see anything that can help gaming PCs. looks like they gonna go the way ferrari went - just a few people will use $2000 gaming PCs, to play one or two nice games which take advantage of PC hardware, all the rest, the majority of the market will be 100% happy with xbox with keyboard/mouse or gamepad or car steering wheel or whatever else attached.
quote:
What's better -- $4/unit on 1 million unit sold are $20/unit on 500,000? It's those type of economies that ensure that SOME developers will still whole-heartedly embrace PC gaming into the future
For this to happen gaming PCs must be always CHEAPER than consoles, and I don't see this ever ever happening with $600 3D video cards for PC. Just foget about MASS market where you have $1000 PC with Halo 2 and $300 Xbox with Gears of War and all the exclusive xbox titles MS has got and will get later.
quote:
And FWIW, I don't understand your focus on Halo 2. I don't see MS really bragging about Halo 2 as "Vista Gaming". I haven't seen them mention much at all about it. If anything they're pimping out FSX much harder than Halo 2
Microsoft has all the rights to Gears of War, they can launch Vista or Windows version any time they want. But they feed Vista gamers with shit called Halo 2. Why do they choose Halo 2 over gears of War? the answer is - they really don't care about Windows gaming, they only care about Xbox gaming. So this episode with Halo 2 is just AN ILLISTRATION, NOTHING MORE. I'm not a Halo or GeoW zealot, I've just seen both and can compare. This story just proves my point about MS ignoring Windows and pouring its resources into Xbox gaming because it brings them more money, and will bring even more when XNA truly gets down to masses.

Treat Halo 2 on Vista _JUST_ AS _ILLUSTRATION_. I mentioned it olny to prove my point about MS policy towards PC and Xbox gaming.


RE: HMMMM
By slacker57 on 1/22/2007 4:30:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
ohh ahh I got 128 uber duper shaders in my 1337 G80, same as boasting nice plastic spoilers on your cheap rice Honda ;)


Just for my sanity, I'll jump off-topic for a sec...

Does no one know how to make a proper analogy anymore? You can't compare a graphics card to a spoiler, that's like comparing a hot chick's chest to an ugly chick's bracelet. One is fundamental to the functioning of the overall machine, while the other is simply an accessory.

(Keep in mind I'm taking a typical superficial man's approach when talking about women. Obviously, her chest size will not equate to her "functionality," and also please note the facetiousness.


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/22/07, Rating: 0
RE: HMMMM
By slacker57 on 1/23/2007 3:12:56 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, you need some valium. Just to clarify, I'm not taking any argument with you about your real point, PC vs. console. I took a moment to make light of the fact that people make really bad metaphors these days.

A video card IN GENERAL is essential to a gaming PC, whereas a spoiler is not essential to an automobile, therefore your analogy about the riced-out car lacks merit. I have no qualm about your points about Halo 2, et al. I agree that it's silly the amount of time it takes to port the Halo games to PC.

This is why they shouldn't have taken analogies out of the SATs.

Sorry to waste everyone else's time with this :)


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/23/2007 4:35:16 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
A video card IN GENERAL is essential to a gaming PC
That's true only if there are GAMES to use it. These days you get Halo games on PC 3 years after they are released on consoles - who needs anything but Intel video to play those?

who needs 8800GTX to play Halo 2 for Vista, this new sick joke from Microsoft?

you know what, here's my point, try to break it -> if you need 8800GTX to play Halo 2 for Vista - THEN you just NEED a flashy spoiler for yuour cheap Honda. 8800GTX is AS USELESS AS A SPOILER because THERE ARE NO games on PC that really use it and really require it, even Crysis is mostly DX9 with some DX10 pieces which might not produce something worth investing $600 in your uberPC (but we'll see about that, my guess that DX10 there is just for looks/hype/marketing but I hope I'm wrong on that)

so, if you need 8800GTX to play Halo 2 on PC, then you need spoiler to drive. plain and simple analogy. got it now?


RE: HMMMM
By SigmaHyperion on 1/23/2007 5:18:21 PM , Rating: 2
Try playing any graphics-pushing game made within the past year or so at 2560x1600 and tell me that you don't need an 8800GTX.

Flight Simulator X will pull even a last generation card to its knees even at HALF that resolution. Company of Heroes is just about the same situation. Even older games like BF1942 or World of Warcraft benefit IMMENSELY from having a card like that at any resolution, but ESPECIALLY at large resolutions that PC gamers (particularly those that are willing to plunk down $500+ for a video card) can and do play at.

It's not JUST a DirectX10 card ya know. It's also, by far, the fastest DX9 card too. Do you "need" it to play them? No. But there are certainly a LOT of games that "use it", and any new game at large resolutions will pretty much "require it".


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/23/2007 8:53:42 PM , Rating: 2
ok Sigma, you got me here. I can't argue 8800GTX is a total waste of money cause for many PC games in 2560x1600 it isn't. but if you look at the situation from the point of view of launching Halo 2 as Vista exclusive - this looks totally braindead. think about this - MS launches ancient FOUR-YEAR OLD game that runs nicely on Intel video as VISTA/DX10 EXCLUSIVE??? so maybe you got nice point - 8800GTX is a requirement when you have 30" lcd monitor. still, MS just made you all look like idiots by releasing old DX8 game for Vista, even worse - it's a Vista EXCLUSIVE, eventhough it should be windows 98 exclusive, to tell you the truth... this move from Microsoft looks and feels as a sick perverted humiliation of PC gamers, like saying "yeah yeah, buy buy buy your 8800GTX graphics cards you stupid PC fanboys, and we will feed you with DX8 games to run on it"

DOES IT LOOK VERY SICK TO YOU? or not?? I'm going to puke, sorry


RE: HMMMM
By SigmaHyperion on 1/23/2007 9:16:51 PM , Rating: 2
Well MS has never been a big publisher/developer of PC games, so I don't see it as their responsibility to release a DX10 game, let alone a good one.

If MS wants to make Halo 2 a Vista exclusive that's their perogative. It'll cut into their sales and it's not like it will be a big reason to go by Vista as it's not like there's many PC gamers waiting with baited breath to play Halo 2. Especially not those that have bought 8800GTXs -- those are hardcore gamers, largely not interested in a game that came out 3 years ago.

I don't see how releasing Halo 2 as a Vista exclusive makes _ANYONE_ "look stupid" outside of perhaps Microsoft for releasing a DX10-required game that doesn't even use DX10 features (or DX9 for that matter).

Lots of crap games come out for the PC everyday that happen to require hardware that I happen to use, do I "look stupid" because Prison Tycoon 14 requires DX9c? Likewise, just because I use DX9c and/or the hardware that it requires, does that mean that I bought that hardware just for that crappy game? Of course not. There are other DX10 games coming out -- Company of Heroes and FSX are more than enough for me personally for the near future.


RE: HMMMM
By Pirks on 1/23/2007 9:40:10 PM , Rating: 2
okay, maybe it's just me who perceives halo 2 release fo vista as a sick joke. in fact you've got a nice point - ms is by far not the only publisher, however I can't have a rest until I find out exactly why ms decided to release halo 2 instead of gears of war, which would be very logical and reasonable step if ms were really seriously interested in promoting PC gaming. you know, it just FEELS like MS ignoring PC market by comparing their Vista and Xbox exclusives. Microsoft is constantly underdeliverng stuff for PC, so I guessed this is their policy now, and they would probbaly like everyone to follow it.

when you see a publisher releasing nice game for Xbox and crappy game for PC - don't you start thinking this publisher is more interested in Xbox? sounds logical and reasonable, right?


RE: HMMMM
By encryptkeeper on 1/23/2007 11:08:04 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, the RTM version of Vista will pretty much suck huge amounts of ass for gaming.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/17/gameplay-on...


RE: HMMMM
By JonnyBlaze on 1/23/2007 12:00:38 PM , Rating: 2
I'm running it and it's fine for gaming. I have a 4 year old system with a new x1650pro video card. Nothing special.


RE: HMMMM
By Hoser McMoose on 1/24/2007 2:32:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I wonder how long more they will continue to support windows xp though.


You can find Microsoft's Windows Life-cycle policy listed here:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/default...

And especially in their FAQ here:

http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifepolicy

Basically WinXP will enter the "Extended Support" phase as of Jan., 2009. Beyond that point it'll pretty much receive only security fixes and minor updates to on-line documentation. It will probably be completely EOLed 10 years after it's original release, or sometime in 2011.


RE: HMMMM
By porkster on 1/22/2007 3:27:40 PM , Rating: 1
You're an idiot. Test it out first as it sucks.

Personally I would like the computing community to boycott it as the OS is so DRM infested.

Vista is a step backward.


RE: HMMMM
By Assimilator87 on 1/24/2007 12:17:19 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I skipped half the thread cuz it's way too long, but anyways MS isn't trying to kill off PC gaming in favor of XB360. Why do you think that most of the killer games coming out are exclusive to both 360 and PC? IMO, MS is trying to promote both platforms. With that in mind, yes there are great games that are solely on one platform, but every platform has their own killer app.


Just wondering about OEM
By jimmy43 on 1/21/2007 3:17:57 PM , Rating: 2
I thought you had to order a motherboard to go with it, can anyone tell me what the difference between OEM and retail is?




RE: Just wondering about OEM
By MrDiSante on 1/21/2007 3:23:46 PM , Rating: 2
OEM is only good for one machine. If you buy OEM, install it on computer A. Then a coupla years down the road you buy computer B, you CAN NOT remove it from computer A and put it on computer B. On the other hand if you buy retail and install it on computer A you may then a coupla years down the road remove it from computer A and install it on computer B.


RE: Just wondering about OEM
By Assimilator87 on 1/21/2007 4:43:20 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know if Microsoft changed the rules for Vista, but I was aware that at least with XP, the OS can be reinstalled an infinite amount of times as long as it's only on one system. You just have to reactivate and it goes through without a hitch.


RE: Just wondering about OEM
By Russell on 1/21/2007 8:57:49 PM , Rating: 2
You are correct. The post you replied to didn't say otherwise - he said the same thing you did with different words.


RE: Just wondering about OEM
By xphile on 1/22/2007 2:03:50 AM , Rating: 2
On XP you can use a licensed copy of the OS on any ONE system. On Vista this is true ONLY if you buy a RETAIL boxed version. OEM versions are to be locked to ONE machine and ONE machine EVER.

So yes they have fundamentally changed licensing in Vista a huge way since the vast majority of Operating System sales are OEM versions with hardware.


RE: Just wondering about OEM
By Rayz on 1/22/2007 9:30:10 AM , Rating: 2
Nope.

The XP OEM license was exactly the same; you were only allowed to use it on the original machine. The license prohibited you from installing it on another machine, so the license remains more or less unchanged.


RE: Just wondering about OEM
By fk49 on 1/21/2007 3:24:40 PM , Rating: 1
OEM copies of Windows OS are much cheaper than retail copies and are meant for small systems builders. They don't come with retail packaging (the pretty box) and are registered and tied to a single motherboard forever(though there may have been a change in that policy..someone want to correct me?).

On a side noted, comparing the differences between Microsoft's list prices and MWave's prices, I'm guessing Home Premium will come to about $115, a bit more than Windows MCE OEM, and Vista Ultimate will be about $175. Just a guess.


RE: Just wondering about OEM
By microAmp on 1/21/2007 3:27:10 PM , Rating: 2
No support from Microsoft if you buy OEM.

No you don't have to buy a motherboard, a cheap mouse, an IDE ribbon cable also works too.


Can anyone tell me or point a link to on how the activation is or what will trigger it when upgrade on the PC is done? Good examples and details would help.

This to me is the only reason I'm weary of upgrading to Vista, don't want to spend $250 for Ultimate and get screwed when I upgrade my PC down the road 3 or 4 times across 5 year span.


RE: Just wondering about OEM
By Pirks on 1/21/2007 4:48:48 PM , Rating: 2
if you monitor winsupersite.com closely you'd notice they had discussions about that with enthusiast community and microsoft did cave in and changed license agreement for retail versions of Vista, so that now your Ultimate or any other Vista retail can follow your PCs forever. as in NO LIMITS to upgrades EVER, PERIOD. BUT - FOR _RETAIL_ ONLY.

you can google this stuff, it was hot on news a month or two months ago. sorry, I'm too lazy to gove you a winsupersite link, go get it yourself. good luck. btw there's a blog post from somewhere in microsoft legal (?) team about this Vista retail licensing change, stating the same, saw it on google and on winsupersite in December


to the one raving about xbox
By mannwhite on 1/21/2007 11:46:49 PM , Rating: 2
I know consoles will always be easier to get into but that's the fun of owning a pc, u have to get your hands dirty tweaking and optimising. When I can't make out the pins on a mobo anymore then maybe I'll opt for a console, but not before. As for the games u named, I have only one title for you, Supreme Commander. I'm an RTS player, name me one RTS worth its salt on a console. Don't even think about mentioning LOTR BFME 2 on XBOX, to say it sucked ass is one of the most massive of massive understatements.




RE: to the one raving about xbox
By Url on 1/22/2007 12:06:23 AM , Rating: 2
I have one: Civilization 2 on the Playstation. :) but i actually prefered it on the computer due to all the expansion packs. but yeah gaming on the pc is better imo


RE: to the one raving about xbox
By Pirks on 1/22/2007 2:10:10 AM , Rating: 2
command and conquer tiberium wars is going to be multiplatform, PC/XBOX game, so looks like PC has lost its lead here as well. it used to have best shooters exclusively, now xbox gears of war has taken the lead. next, PC used to have unbeatable RTS exclusives, like command and conquer - well, no more. C&C is not a PC exclusive anymore. too bad PC lost this important piece of game market. who'd buy an expensive $2000 PC to play C&C now if you can play SAME C&C on $300 Xbox 360? things are defnitely going down the drain :(


RE: to the one raving about xbox
By Hare on 1/22/2007 2:36:22 AM , Rating: 2
There are many games that are not PC exclusive but taste a lot better on a PC.

You don't have to pay 2000$ that's ridiculous. With 1000$ you can get a good mobo, e6300, x1950pro 1gb ram 320gb hd and a decent 20.1" 1680x1050 display. (I guess I shouldn't even list the monitor as it doesn't come with the xbox), so make it 700$. That machine can run games at resolutions triple the Xbox and is not limited to one specific purpose. Many people can just pay an extra 300$ for a game PC instead of a generic officePC that they would need even if they had 3 consoles.


RE: to the one raving about xbox
By Pirks on 1/22/2007 3:58:32 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
There are many games that are not PC exclusive but taste a lot better on a PC
I mostly find the opposite true, especially with titles like Splinter Cell Double Agent and Halo.
quote:
You don't have to pay 2000$ that's ridiculous. With 1000$ you can get a good mobo, e6300, x1950pro 1gb ram 320gb hd and a decent 20.1" 1680x1050 display. (I guess I shouldn't even list the monitor as it doesn't come with the xbox), so make it 700$.
No man, this won't work like that because that cheap $1000 PC you got will need another upgrade to stay on top of things and after a couple of years you end up with my $2000 'cause you wasted $1000 on a couple of mobo/CPU/RAM/GPU upgrades. The console, on the other hand... well, you got the idea :)


RE: to the one raving about xbox
By Hare on 1/22/2007 4:35:00 PM , Rating: 2
That's one of the MOST idiotic things ever said. Do you realise that if I don't upgrade the system I would just see a constant performance level just like with the console. However IF I CHOOSE to upgrade and spend more money I would get a better machine and a better experience.

Let's see. I have a C2D desktop with ATI X1950 series GPU. Want to compare this to an original XBOX? I would say that the XBOX looks pretty pathetic.

You actually tried to make one of the strong sides of a computer (upgrades) its weakness? Interesting logic.


RE: to the one raving about xbox
By Pirks on 1/22/2007 5:21:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you realise that if I don't upgrade the system I would just see a constant performance level just like with the console. However IF I CHOOSE to upgrade and spend more money I would get a better machine and a better experience.
Nope, you THINK you are CHOOSING, but in fact you are FORCED to upgrade because PC release of the new flashy game will require monstrous new $600 3D card, while THE SAME game will run w/o any upgrades on same old Xbox. take Doom3 for example - when it was released it required unbelievable video cards to run on PC, and then later it was ported to Xbox, and console crowd got same game by paying exactly ZERO to upgrade xbox, since you know, it's not upgradeable :)

I'll take my words back when I see a flood of triple A DX10 only titles on Vista. for now I see only Halo 2 on Vista and Gears of War on Xbox - PC as a gaming platform is humiliated/destroyed by this comparison
quote:
I have a C2D desktop with ATI X1950 series GPU. Want to compare this to an original XBOX? I would say that the XBOX looks pretty pathetic
very nice, I also have powerful PC that blows any xbox 360 away, so what? My UBERPOWERFUL PC is busy drawing "superflashy" and "beautiful" grey labyrynths of Halo 2 from 2003 or so... while cheap old ugly Xbox 360 crowd has Gears of War and Lost Planet. well, stay happy about your HARDWARE, I don't mind, but I'll be looking into GAMES, not into how many shaders your UBER PC has
quote:
You actually tried to make one of the strong sides of a computer (upgrades) its weakness? Interesting logic.
how exactly upgrades help you or anyone here to run nice games on a PC? how come Gears of War are not being helped by those magic upgrades? yeah, man, just tell me one IMPORTANT THING - WHERE ARE YOUR UPGRADES when I need games? are you seriously saying "hey, xbox sucks because my graphics card is so uberpowerful, and who cares if there are shitty Halo 2s on PC while xbox has GeoW and LP? games don't matter, it's the amount of shaders that matters"??? man, you gotta be kidding, right? if not - then THIS logic is waaay more interesting than mine :)


RE: to the one raving about xbox
By TheMaster on 1/22/2007 6:31:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
for now I see only Halo 2 on Vista and Gears of War on Xbox - PC as a gaming platform is humiliated/destroyed by this comparison


I see only Gears of War on 360 and Crysis on PC - 360 as a gaming platform is humiliated/destroyed by this comparison

quote:
My UBERPOWERFUL PC is busy drawing "superflashy" and "beautiful" grey labyrynths of Halo 2 from 2003 or so...


Really? so you have Halo 2 already? you seem to be one of the biggest 360 fanboys here and you don't have a clue You seem to be under some impression that because a game isn't out for the PC that a PC couldn't run it.

quote:
how exactly upgrades help you or anyone here to run nice games on a PC?


If you don't know the answer to this then you shouldn't even be posting in this thread.

quote:
are you seriously saying "hey, xbox sucks because my graphics card is so uberpowerful, and who cares if there are shitty Halo 2s on PC while xbox has GeoW and LP? games don't matter, it's the amount of shaders that matters"??? man, you gotta be kidding, right? if not - then THIS logic is waaay more interesting than mine :)


Are you on drugs? can you put together a coherent sentence?
You do know the only reason graphics cards on the PC are getting more and more powerfull is because of games, right?
On average a new card is brought out every 6 months , do you think the graphics card companys do this for the good of their health? get real.

There is no game available on any console ATM that wouldn't look better on a decent PC, hey! here's a question what are you writing these posts on? your precious 360?


RE: to the one raving about xbox
By Pirks on 1/22/2007 7:47:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I see only Gears of War on 360 and Crysis on PC - 360 as a gaming platform is humiliated/destroyed by this comparison
haha - you can't say this until Crysis is released and even by then I have no idea what great titles Xbox 360 will have, maybe by the end of this year when Crysis is finally released for PC Xbox will have a slew of triple A games and nobody from the common gaming folk will be interested in Crysis anymore. what matters now is that 1) xbox RIGHT NOW has some wonderful games like GeoW which PC does NOT have 2) Vista will have one ancient 2003-era game soon, which is Halo 2. by the end of the year there will be Crysis but think of games that will be published on Xbox by then.
quote:
You seem to be under some impression that because a game isn't out for the PC that a PC couldn't run it.
you're just like others - NOONE HERE understands what I am saying. I'll repeat it loud, for you and others, once again: YES, PC CAN RUN ANY GAME. NO, THERE ARE NO DECENT VISTA GAMES, NOT BECAUSE PC CAN'T RUN THEM, BUT BECAUSE MICROSOFT DOES NOT WANT DECENT GAMES ON VISTA. MICROSOFT WANTS DECENT GAMES ON XBOX ONLY. getting the picture now?
quote:
so you have Halo 2 already?

I played all two Halos both on PC and on Xbox, so I know what to expect from Halo 2 for PC, after spending countless hours with Halo 1 for PC.
quote:
you seem to be one of the biggest 360 fanboys here and you don't have a clue

haha, so I am fanboy and you know the REAL truth. Great - now show me some screenshots and videos of Halo 2 that just KILL, say, Gears of War or Lost Planet? can you show me one? this is usually the moment people shut up - they go looking for screenshots and demos and then they realize how shitty Halo 2 looks compared to GeoW and other recent games. don't do this - you'll break your heart looking at all this halo 2 sadness :))
quote:
"how exactly upgrades help you or anyone here to run nice games on a PC?" If you don't know the answer to this then you shouldn't even be posting in this thread.
If you knew the answer to the question "why consoles get better and better games WITHOUT ANY UPGRADES" - you'd stop posting here as well :)
quote:
You do know the only reason graphics cards on the PC are getting more and more powerfull is because of games, right? On average a new card is brought out every 6 months, do you think the graphics card companys do this for the good of their health?
yeaahh, riiight, so HDDs, CPUs, memory, displays, cases, EVERYTHIG ELSE that is ALSO CONSTANTLY PROGRESSING (and everything in PC industry is constantly progressing, even printers! you know this, dontcha? :) - ALL OF THAT is progressing JUST BECAUSE OF PC GAMES??!! hahahahaha ROFLMAO!!! that was a nice one, keep posting stuff like that :)))
quote:
There is no game available on any console that wouldn't look better on a decent PC
"WOULDN'T" is THE word here! we all know games WOULD look the best on PC. btw I agree with that. now, WHERE ARE THEY, all these games that are supposed to look good, huh? man , I know PC would, PC if and PC maybe if - all that I know. I'm looking into FACTS. and fact is: NO GAMES. even though PC _WOULD_ do absolutely everything, I agree.

I mean - feel the difference beteen words "WOULD" and "IS" :))
quote:
here's a question what are you writing these posts on? your precious 360?
hahaha - I alwasy said here PC is the best for internet, posting, word, web, office, software development etc. which includes posting here :)

but PC FOR GAMING? nah :) PC was uber gaming machine in 2004 but, sadly, not anymore


I'm getting on that wagon too!!!
By Lennie22 on 1/21/2007 7:17:53 PM , Rating: 2
I look forward for the day it is released to the public so I can get it. If you feel comfortable with XP good for you, I say 1up to you.

But as for me I like the perks that Vista offers, I mean I can finally stuff that 8GB+ of memory in my box, that sweet Aero is there by default, the whole look is just.....sweet. I don't care if they say Vista is a carbon copy of OS X, what I can say is Microsoft is stepping up, its high time they had a "true" 64bit OS and that time is here, now I can really edit my movies and audio at home without keeping an eye on how much memory space I got left.

security wise, I believe Vista is as good too, its a new OS its gonna have its holes, thats why auto update is on, and a software and hardware firewall running and AV running, and thats why I don't click click click "yes" on every thing that pops up on my monitor.

so for all of you who wants to wait another year or two to get it, then good for you, but I'll be on that wagon as soon as I can.




By ketchup79 on 1/21/2007 8:13:21 PM , Rating: 2
I probably won't be getting Vista for a while. I have tried the betas, and to be honest, XP can do everything Vista can do for me, only XP does it faster. One nice thing about Vista is that is ALL of my hardware runs on it, a far cry from when XP was released.
I am a little curious as to how mwave is able to sell these with Microsoft's blessing (maybe they are hoping Microsoft won't notice?) I work at Staples, and we already have every version of Vista in stock, but of course we cannot sell them until the 30th.


RE: I'm getting on that wagon too!!!
By nomagic on 1/21/2007 8:22:39 PM , Rating: 2
Very good. You can have fun with Vista then. I will buy Vista when SP1 is released. It makes more sense to me to buy Vista + SP1 because I have decided to stop being an early adopter. For good reasons, of course...


RE: I'm getting on that wagon too!!!
By Russell on 1/21/2007 8:57:52 PM , Rating: 2
Good for you. That doesn't mean you have to share it with the world.


By msva124 on 1/22/2007 11:41:23 AM , Rating: 2
Good for you. That doesn't mean you have to share it with the world.


RE: I'm getting on that wagon too!!!
By borowki on 1/21/2007 9:24:02 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly why people say Vista looks like OSX is beyond me. I'm typing this on a Mac right now and it hardly resembles Vista. Microsoft might be playing catch-up when it comes to utilizing the power of the GPU for user interface purpose, to say that it's copying Apple is wrong and misleading. Most of the allegedly plagiarized ideas are obvious and simply represent the natural evolution of operation systems.

I will probably upgrade as soon as Vista come out too. Mainly I like the improvements to Explorer. The addition of multiple drop-down menus to the file path bar is very neat. The filtering options are very nice. And the way they've merge the view option control with the icon size control is quite clever.

My only concern is the upgrade path to 64bit. Does the premium package include both 32bit and 64bit version or are the two separate?


By robertgu on 1/22/2007 6:44:51 PM , Rating: 2
I entirely agree. I have a Mac @ home which my wife mostly use and I've been playing with Vista Betas for awhile and I also manage a few Linux server @ work.

In using Vista I would agree with you that what Microsoft has done with Vista is just the natural progression of enhancing an OS with 3D and new features. All these "M$ ripped from MAC" comments to me is just fanboyism and anti-anything-M$ related.

Eventually when Linux goes 3D and invokes the same "RIPPED" features of MAC and Vista; are these people going to start bitching that it was plagiarism too? If they're an anti-M$ person, of course they would say it wasnt a rip. To me all these fanboyism and anti-M$ is stupid. MAC makes a great, easy to use product, for non-techies. Microsoft has been making a great enough product to merit the fact that 90% of the world is still happy enough to use it and is not so inclined to have switched off of it. And Linux is a great product for business servers and general users who especially want to get their hands dirty by digging into the inner workings of the technology.

Ive been working with RC2 64-bit since it was released and I have grown to like it...A LOT. It boots faster than XP on my laptop and desktop, and it has a lot of nice and kewl features I long for when I'm on my work Windows XP Pro computer. Im not an avid FPS gamer so I would have no problems installing it on my gaming system even though Vista 64-bit is projected to be a slower gaming platform @ least initially. And lastly, I plan on getting Vista 64-bit when it gets released this month.

Even though I routinely use and promote all three major OSs (Microsoft, MAC, and Linux) I bet the anti-M$ guys will label me a M$ fanboy because I choose to be a Vista early-adopter. Sheesh!!


pc and xbox gaming
By whalenapp81 on 1/22/2007 2:36:00 AM , Rating: 2
listen ms is going to support both gaming platforms, be it the xbox360 or the pc, this year ms is installing thousands of games for windows kioasks into game store and retail outlets, and with live anywhere (which they still havent nailed down a price point for pc gamers yet), and with the games for windows initiative, ms is finally giving the pc its support as a gaming platform, so lets all just settle down, and be happy that pc gaming will become a little more competitive, and for all the vista neysayers out there, i have used it, and its the best os ms has come out with in over a decade, and no, macs and liniux arent going to win or topple ms, whats keeping apple alive is ipods/itunes, and the hope of the iphone, not their computers, and liniux will stil be in its niche (im not trying to hate on liniux i have the yellow hat for the ps3 and have found it to be really good), so let sstop all the hate, buts it the internet and that would be too much to ask for




RE: pc and xbox gaming
By Pirks on 1/22/2007 4:10:25 AM , Rating: 2
I agree that Vista is a major one and Linux is a "niche forever" OS, I was just not quite sure that Games for Windows is not a complete fake. Check out this before flaming me: you have two nice games to compare right now, one is a major hyped Xbox title and the other one is also a hyped Vista title. Xbox side is presented by Gears of War. Vista side is presented by Halo 2. Do you see what I'm talking about? Don't you understand that you just can't compare beauty and modern graphics of Gears of War to several year old DX8 graphics of Halo? These things are just fucking incomparable! Is this Halo 2 exclusive a joke or what? Are they really treating us like brain dead PC zombies? I'd rather see MS announce nothing, no Games for Windows, instead of this perverted humiliation named Halo 2. What a shame to see this when Xbox crowd enjoys Gears of War. Seriously, do you guys think porting several year old Xbox game to Vista and hyping it is showing any respect to PC gamers? Jesus, what a shame, what a shame for PC, a monster gaming platform of the past... Carmack's gone to consoles, MS sells consoles themselves, pays Epic and Bungie and forces them to make games Xbox exclusive. And to finish off Vista gamers they grab this museum old Halo 2 and port it to VISTA!! I gonna cry now :((((


RE: pc and xbox gaming
By whalenapp81 on 1/22/2007 1:33:54 PM , Rating: 2
i know what ur saying, and i agree that the situation has been a bummer for the pc, but i am really hoping that ms gets its act together this year, and do all the things i metnioned in the above post, so people will start looking at pc gaming as the fourth platform, and not as the redheaded nerdy overwieght stepchild =/

and ps i agree that halo 2 for vista does suck


RE: pc and xbox gaming
By Pirks on 1/22/2007 2:14:29 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
i agree that the situation has been a bummer for the pc. i agree that halo 2 for vista does suck.
nice! thanks for supporting me - besides these two statements that you agreed with I don't have much to say :) nice to see similar thinking people here on DT forums ;) I want PC to become number one gaming platform again, just like any other DT reader, but the big picture of the game market right now is soo depressing, don't wanna talk about it anymore, it's just sad sad stuff


RE: pc and xbox gaming
By telawolf on 1/23/2007 10:59:38 AM , Rating: 2
Xbox does not offer,

good keyboard mouse support, needed to play fps games
I like programs like xfire,vent,IRC.
I like to set up my graphics and res to optimize playability.


I personally am from a online gaming team http:\\www.check6gaming.com

Play games like bf2,css,cod2 in leagues and events. The community is what I love about PC. Xbox kiddies, is the main reason I will never even consider the XBox.

World of Warcraft is also the most addicting, money making game ever.


RE: pc and xbox gaming
By Pirks on 1/23/2007 12:39:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Xbox does not offer good keyboard mouse support, needed to play fps games
Why you PC zealots are so fucking dumb? No, really, I'm not trolling here, 'cause I posted here THREE times about that thing called XFPS 360. Can you read at all? If you can - why you missed my previous answers here to all other zealots who asked similar stupid questions "where is my kbd/mouse combo"? I'm getting tired. Looks like idiots who can't read will pop up here from time to time asking SAME stupid questions.

Maybe it's not you, however, maybe this is megastupid rating system of this forum which DOES NOT REMEMBER my preferences for view threshold. Hey DT guys, how hard is that for you to learn some UI lessons and user friendliness and make damn thing REMEMBER that I want to see posts with rating starting with -1 'cause downmodders are sooo fucking annoying, I can't read best posts here because of them! I have to go to my settings EVERY TIME I view new thread and reset the setting to -1. Please, DT guys, do something, ok? Thank you.

I suppose because of fucking downmodders all my posts with XFPS 360 got modded down and this is why you haven't seen them. That's the only excuse I'd accept :)

quote:
I like programs like xfire,vent,IRC
That's what PC if for, but not quite for gaming these days. You missed this part of my previous posts too. Looks like I will have to repeat the same stuff again and again because of downmodders and stupid rating system. Sigh... it was sooo god here until this rating system was implemented :(
quote:
I like to set up my graphics and res to optimize playability
Yeah, I know, many people also like to spend their life tuning their car, a nice hobby, I agree, but most people prefer JUST drive and JUST play great games. No tuning, no optimizing, no antivirus setups, no IRC bots coding - do you even believe me that most people DO NOT need all that from a good gaming machine? This is your zealotry level test, let's see your answer now :)
quote:
World of Warcraft is also the most addicting, money making game ever
Yeah, WoW fans say this, and Halo fans say Halo is the most addictive and money making game, and then there's Gears of War that leaves WoW waaaay behind, just read about its crazy sales just for three last months! Xbox is getting triple A megahits from Microsoft and most people spend their time and money there. PCs? Well, besides Crysis who'd require $600 graphics card again to see it in all its glory, AT LEAST to make it beat gears of war graphically... nothing really big and interesting anymore that's PC exclusive. All the other major PC games we'll get on Xbox, Valve and id software and Bioshock on 360 - that's just the beginnig, because there are ECONOMIC reasons for that, which you haven't read about in my posts either because you can't read or because downmodders and DT team together made them hard to read. I don't care which :)


RE: pc and xbox gaming
By yak8998 on 1/28/2007 11:23:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why you PC zealots are so fucking dumb? No, really, I'm not trolling here, 'cause I posted here THREE times about that thing called XFPS 360. Can you read at all?


Reading isn't the hard part, its stumbling through your fifth grade ramblings.

quote:
Sigh... it was sooo god here until this rating system was implemented :(


It was invented because of people like you. I do agree with you about the -1 threshold however - it would avoid you rehashing the same garbage again and again. Stop trolling for attention. Its not hard to tell with the little cute comments about how you wish PC wasn't in such a bad position. Pick a side (that you actually have convictions about. Influenced opinion would not hurt you either.)

Also, for the sake of the sanity of people reading these comments, get some more substance to your arguments besides buzzwords. Something without the following phrases:
* Halo 2
* Gears of War
* Triple A

You almost single-handedly turned this thread into a messy abortion of logic.


Face facts
By KashGarinn on 1/22/2007 5:57:53 AM , Rating: 1
There is no reason to upgrade to vista..

it's riddled with bad DRM, you'll have problems installing your hardware, it will treat you as an imbecile, the games you normally play, don't work on it.

It's a complete and utter disaster, and I don't recommend it even if you do get everything to work, because you don't control what you can do on your computer.. the DRM on it means you do not control what you do on the computer. Microsoft controls it, so don't use it.

It's also bloated and slow, even on new-ish hardware (I've got a AMD 4800, x1900, 2GB memory and I'm not touching that thing)

I don't want my to have to upgrade my computer because of a frickin' OS! In my mind that's the epitomy of stupidity.

/rant off

K.




RE: Face facts
By majorpain on 1/22/2007 10:46:19 AM , Rating: 2
Theres a few issues infact. But the most of them i had installing Vista 64bits, with 32Bits i had a nice surprise. Tested the machine even with Athlon 3000+ 754, 1GB, Radeon X300 and a 80GB ATA 133 on a PCCHIPS A31 G. Damn thing runs smoodly... installed ATI beta drivers and played Battlefield 2 with no issues at all. Installed a TV card and had a few issues with WMP Codecs wich Vista blocks cause of "future" issues... After a few hours trying to install every little thing i use with XP, i get the idea that is not really a good time to make the change, theres alot of issues with most of the software, even running on 32 bits, and when you are able to install drivers or even the hardware, you need to know alot, and my guess is that not everyone will know how to do it. So XP is the best choice for now. What i really didnt like about Vista is the change in Menus and buttons... its hell to find the things we are used to use or do...


RE: Face facts
By porkster on 1/22/2007 3:32:16 PM , Rating: 1
totally agree!!

BOYCOTT VISTA as it's for LAMERS.

I can't only see vista selling to new system owners and lamers who think they are stepping up. The realy thing is that the OS is a SHOCKER!!! It's stuffed!!!


RE: Face facts
By robertgu on 1/22/2007 7:00:30 PM , Rating: 4
Maybe you were too young to remember the Windows 98/ME to Windows XP switch over. But these same stupid comments were made countless times back then.

I also remember the same stupid and useless comments being made by many parties during the DOS to Windows 3.1 stage and the Windows 3.11 to Windows 95 stage. I know, I'm showing my age :(


I'm glad that people like Microsoft and other software developers don't come to people like you for advice. Otherwise software technology would have never progressed.

Here's my prediction; in 3 to 10 years from now, when the next new major Microsoft OS comes out. I bet these forums will be full of people like you spewing useless comments on how upgrading to whatever-the-new-OS-name-is is for lamers, useless, bloated, etc. and that Vista is just fine and we don't need to upgrade. Sheesh!!!


RE: Face facts
By novacthall on 1/26/2007 4:21:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Here's my prediction; in 3 to 10 years from now, when the next new major Microsoft OS comes out. I bet these forums will be full of people like you spewing useless comments on how upgrading to whatever-the-new-OS-name-is is for lamers, useless, bloated, etc. and that Vista is just fine and we don't need to upgrade. Sheesh!!!

I'm not touching that bet with a barge pole.


Don't laugh, but...
By stmok on 1/21/2007 4:19:52 PM , Rating: 2
Vista Ultimate Limited Signature Edition
http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Windows-Ultimate-N...

A version that's signed by Mr Gates himself.
(Identical to the regular Ultimate Edition)

Sorry, but...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!




RE: Don't laugh, but...
By allst1 on 1/21/2007 4:40:23 PM , Rating: 2
Signatures on products.. maybe that's the last signature.. he's no longer officially in charge.


RE: Don't laugh, but...
By Russell on 1/21/2007 8:58:25 PM , Rating: 2
He hasn't been "officially" in charge for years. That said, he's very much unofficially in charge.


RE: Don't laugh, but...
By Pirks on 1/21/2007 5:32:55 PM , Rating: 3
Thanks Bill, we love you too :)


Not worth getting at this time
By viperpa on 1/23/2007 4:01:01 PM , Rating: 2
For me and like many other people I spoke with, Vista is not worth getting at this time. The biggest issue with Vista is the DRM. Vista is nothing but a drag on system resources. I will stick with XP Pro for as long as I can. Third party vendors will support XP for a long time.




RE: Not worth getting at this time
By girlyman on 1/23/2007 5:59:23 PM , Rating: 2
blah, blah, blah...whinny bastards. Vista is finally here...be happy, excited, anything but bitch about it on message boards.


RE: Not worth getting at this time
By viperpa on 1/23/2007 7:18:59 PM , Rating: 2
Will here all the whines and complaints after it is officially released. Why should I be excited about something that isn't really a true new OS? I am only stating facts when people say they aren't switching to Vista, just some people have a hard time excepting it. Some people are happy with what they have.


By Hoser McMoose on 1/24/2007 3:42:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why should I be excited about something that isn't really a true new OS?


How exactly is Vista NOT a "true new OS"? And if Vista doesn't qualify, then what does?! Does the OS have to be re-written from the ground-up to be considered new? If so then I don't think even Mac OS X counts since it was based off a bunch of BSD code.

Really Vista is quite significantly different from any previous version of Windows. Sure, most of these changes are evolutionary rather then revolutionary, but that's pretty much the nature of the game with OSes these days. If any OS is a really revolutionary step up from it's predecessor then it's probably because the old OS was horribly outdated (as was the case with MacOS 9.x -> Mac OS X).

I'm hardly one to advocate running out and buying it on the first day of release, hell it won't even install on my current PC (nForce2 motherboard is not compatible with Vista out of the box). However anyone who tells you that Vista is just a "minor cosmetic update" to WinXP or any nonsense like that has clearly never used Vista or they simply are idiots who hate everything Microsoft (possibly as a means of trying to justify the fact that they are using a pirated version of Windows?)


Vista features??
By restrada on 1/21/2007 4:08:39 PM , Rating: 2
I had no idea Home Premium did not have backup copy. Does anyone know a link that has all the detailed features by the version for Vista?




RE: Vista features??
By ss284 on 1/21/2007 4:12:52 PM , Rating: 3
Just so you know, shadow copy isn't exactly backup copy


RE: Vista features??
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/21/2007 4:34:20 PM , Rating: 2
The link is included in the article:

http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista_02.as...


Does anyone knows ...
By Shark Tek on 1/21/2007 6:04:43 PM , Rating: 2
Does anyone here knows if I can use a Upgrade Edition of Vista on a computer with a legitimate Windows XP Pro license.

Like the XP Pro Upgrade CD that the main requirement is to have a computer with a previous Windows O/S installed on it.

Is there a link to a site with that information?

Thanks !!!




RE: Does anyone knows ...
By Pirks on 1/21/2007 6:13:33 PM , Rating: 2
It Could Be Free, I Still Don't Want It
By porkster on 1/22/2007 3:20:41 PM , Rating: 1
It could be offered free, but I don't want it anymore. I've been using Vista Ultimate and with all the DRM infestation and limitations due to DRM, I can't stand this OS.

Sorry MS but you could offer you OS for free and I still wouldn't want it. It's garbage and I'm returning to XP or another OS. DX10 isn't enough for me to put up with the limitations caused by Digital Rights Management!

I think Vista is going to be a flop! People will uninstalled it from new computers and put on XP. Vista is a nightmare.




RE: It Could Be Free, I Still Don't Want It
By restrada on 1/22/2007 3:59:08 PM , Rating: 2
I think Vista is going to be a flop! People will uninstalled it from new computers and put on XP. Vista is a nightmare.

You might say it's a flop now, but I almost guarantee you will be back when Microsoft finally cuts off support for XP. It's people like you who bash Microsoft in an open forum such as Dailytech, then use Vista behind the scenes.


By robertgu on 1/22/2007 7:06:11 PM , Rating: 2
So true.

Just like when we swtiched from any old Windows release to the next new major one. I've seen these people say how terrible it is and they will not use it, its bloated and so on. Yet they eventually upgrade and then start bitching about the next major release (at this time Vista, tomorrow it will be whatever new Microsoft OS) and start praising how good the old OS is and they will not upgrade to the new OS.


Newegg joining the early bandwagon!!!
By restrada on 1/22/2007 4:54:03 PM , Rating: 3
Just out: Newegg.com is now selling Vista Business, Home Premium and Basic!




By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/23/2007 1:44:00 PM , Rating: 2
I will be picking up a copy on the 30th on Launch Day. I figure Microsoft will be selling it at the launch event that us IT professionals are attending. Not to mention that free copy of Office 2007 Pro they are giving us. Ah its good to be in IT.


Was XP this slower than 98?
By msva124 on 1/22/2007 11:48:22 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.pcworld.com/zoom?id=128305&page=2&zoomI...

Impressed by the multitasking results, but I honestly don't multitask that much. I have a lot of word documents and firefox tabs open but only one of them is in use at a time. And when I play a game or unrar a file it's usually one at a a time.




RE: Was XP this slower than 98?
By msva124 on 1/22/2007 11:51:22 AM , Rating: 2
Well, it really depends on your definition of multitasking. I'd like to see a multitasking benchmark on a website with streaming video and some flash advertisements.


OEM not both 32-bit and 64-bit?
By bollwerk on 1/23/2007 12:04:28 PM , Rating: 2
Newegg.com lists 32-bit Vista in stock, but no mention of 64-bit. Are the OEM versions different than what they did in beta and RC versions where both 32-bit and 64-bit were on the same install DVD? Maybe the retail version has both, but OEM is one or the other?




By Octoparrot on 1/23/2007 6:06:31 PM , Rating: 2
I've read that you only get one version with the OEM. Retail version comes with both 32- & 64-bit versions.


By crystal clear on 1/22/2007 12:24:51 AM , Rating: 3
Gartner has a word of caution for you-Read this

Quote-

What kinds of things aren't ready? Mostly drivers. Microsoft is including more than 19,000 "in the box", but expects to have another 12,000 available via Microsoft Update. Some of the drivers available so far are still considered beta, are somewhat unstable or do not support the full feature set of the devices. And Microsoft's own Application Compatibility Toolkit (unimportant for consumers, but very important for enterprises) and Windows Mobile Device Center (important for enterprises and consumers) are also still in beta.

Microsoft and the ecosystem need to be ready for the 30 January consumer launch. People want a stable system with devices they can use. Coupled with the security issues that have already surfaced, Microsoft and the ecosystem need to provide complete and stable driver support by launch, or Windows Vista will have a difficult time overcoming some troublesome first impressions.

http://vista.blog.gartner.com/blog/index.php?catid...

Post-Jan 4 07

quote-
" but expects to have another 12,000 available via Microsoft Update. Some of the drivers available so far are still considered beta, "

Unquote-
This is what worrries me,there so much waiting to be done,so close to the launch date.

I would recommend wait till March/April & not rush to buy one.

IF not, the closing statement of Gartner will hit hard-

"or Windows Vista will have a difficult time overcoming some troublesome first impressions."





Good luck with vista...
By mgambrell on 1/21/2007 9:02:36 PM , Rating: 2
Good luck with vista, guys, so far I am 1 for 4 on successful installs. Driver support is bad. Its not worth my time. Wait a while.




Little quickie on MS OEM
By Aenslead on 1/21/2007 10:00:36 PM , Rating: 2
Ok... you guys aren't really familiar with OEM stuff, so here it goes:

OEM licences are only valid when you buy a new computer and is invoiced along the rest of the components. It may also be purchased along with: motherboard, RAM, CPU, Hard Disk or Floppy. Optical Devices and PSU's don't count (don't ask me why).

The retail version can be installed in any computer, regardless its an existing computer or new one.

There is support for OEM licensing, of course. The only aspects Microsoft does not support (free at least) are for Windows Server products, for which they charge a certain amount (120usd for most products) for extra support.

OEM licenses are exactly the same as Retail ones. Its just cheaper because of the condition it should be sold in and was made so to promote and encourage buying new hardware.

Cheers, everyone.




For free I wouldn't want it!
By frobizzle on 1/22/2007 8:04:52 AM , Rating: 2
Has anyone here read Peter Gutmann's paper on "Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection"? It is scary!
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_c...





Now the Brits have it too
By crystal clear on 1/22/2007 8:36:24 AM , Rating: 2
Here up for sale Retail version of Vista in UK-
Quote-

Microsoft Windows Vista Business 32-Bit & 64-Bit Edition DVD - Retail (66J-00022)

The Windows Vista Business operating system is designed to meet the needs of business organizations of all sizes. Retail versions includes both 32-Bit & 64-Bit versions selectable at installation.
Microsoft Pre-order £211.99
(£249.09)

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/productlist.php?grou...

The OEM version is in stock for sale.




Wowwas going to be
By CoreGamer on 1/23/2007 11:18:08 AM , Rating: 2
Just 199$ For ultimate ? Not as bad as I thought it was going to be




Pirks
By smitty3268 on 1/23/2007 1:28:08 PM , Rating: 2
You make laugh. I must have read through about 50 nearly identical posts from you. :)




ehhh GoW this and GoW that
By valkator on 1/24/2007 12:37:36 AM , Rating: 2
Yes I too have read posts nearly identical in form from pirks. Man what 14 year olds do on their days off of school. For starters, GoW doesn't look that good. I played the game start to finish and I was surprised at how the gameplay followed through for a console game. But the graphics for that game looked kind of cheesy. Playing on a 1080p HDTV, I noticed that the graphics really are not that good. They APPEAR to look good but when you really look at them, it just looks like glorified skins on crummy models. Kind of has that I spray painted a picture of what that ear is suppose to look like. GoW is a short overrated video game and I have many others that I played the game with, we were at parties and love the xbox 360 btw, and we agree. So shut up about GoW. Thats all I hear is GoW this and halo 2 that. Now I am going to sit down and play CSS on xbox 360... O wait shoot I can't without having that extremely huge fanbase over steam, which I know steam is flaky, and enjoy it with all the hackers and clans out there. GoW was pretty good but damn I wish I didn't spend 60 bucks on 5 hours of medicore gameplay.




"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki