backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 90 comment(s) - last by kalak.. on Jul 6 at 7:52 AM

Originally for Vista, now for XP too
"Shadowrun" cracked to run on Windows XP

To gamers, one of Microsoft’s incentives for upgrading to Windows Vista is the promise of being able to play the latest in PC games. While the stunning Crysis may prove to be reason enough, gamers right now are not yet convinced by the latest in Windows Vista-only software.
Halo 2 released last month for the PC, albeit after a minor wardrobe malfunction, after originally appearing on the Xbox in 2004. Most gamers found that it wasn’t worth the extra wait for the PC version, with it scoring an average of over 20 percent lower than the console counterpart.

Shadowrun, another Windows Vista-only game, did not face any lag between it and the console version, though PC gamers not running the latest Microsoft operating system did find themselves completely unsupported.

Classic cracker group Razor 1911, however, has made it possible for those running Windows XP to play the supposedly Vista-only Shadowrun with the replacement of several files. Release notes from the group indicate that their illegal, cracked version of the software will only work with bot matches and over LAN, but not online. It is unclear if legitimate copies played on Windows XP will retain their online functionality.

For Windows XP gamers still waiting to play Halo 2, Falling Leaf Systems claims to be working on a software library that will allow the game to be run on the older operating system. Falling Leaf currently estimates that its software will be ready in late July.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Kinda upsetting....
By gradoman on 6/26/2007 8:21:29 AM , Rating: 5
...that they want to force Vista down people's throats in order to play the latest game. If these "hacker" groups can do it, why can't MS give in and allow folks to play on XP? It's not as if we are switching to a non-MS OS to play.

So Annoying.




RE: Kinda upsetting....
By danskmacabre on 6/26/2007 8:30:32 AM , Rating: 2
I assume this is only the case with games made by Microsoft right?


RE: Kinda upsetting....
By darkpaw on 6/26/2007 8:51:13 AM , Rating: 5
Yah, just MS games and anything written in native DX10 will require Vista. Really stupid marketing gimic. I don't see how MS thought this would work out, the only results I can see are:

1) People will use cracks like this for the artificially Vista only games. DX10 native games wouldn't be able to be cracked I think.
2) People will pirate Vista to play the games
3) People just won't buy the MS games. Especially when they are releasing crap like Halo2. Oh boy, a 3 year old game.

Most people are not going to upgrade to Vista just to play a few specific games. I think in the case of all these non DX10 games, MS is probably losing more revenue on potential game sales then what they gain by forcing Vista.


RE: Kinda upsetting....
By therealnickdanger on 6/26/2007 9:08:45 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
MS is probably losing more revenue on potential game sales then what they gain by forcing Vista.

Vista sales are surging since they are included in almost every new PC sold. Revenue is up, it's up huge, regardless of a couple thousand copies of a port of an old, crappy game. Whatever Microsoft loses in PC game sales it more than makes up for with its 360 game sales, by a large margin. You also have to remember that DX10 games will also run in a DX9 mode for XP users or Vista users with DX9 cards.


RE: Kinda upsetting....
By darkpaw on 6/26/2007 9:16:44 AM , Rating: 2
MS isn't targeting the people buying new PC's with these Vista only requirements. They are trying to get the gaming audience to buy Vista upgrades. I run Vista and I still think this is a stupid idea.


RE: Kinda upsetting....
By darkpaw on 6/26/2007 12:01:31 PM , Rating: 2
On thing I would like to note though is that any kind of game hack/no cd hack can come loaded with all kind of malware badness like keyloggers. Personally, I wouldn't recommend using any kind of 3rd party hack.


RE: Kinda upsetting....
By LogicallyGenius on 6/27/07, Rating: 0
RE: Kinda upsetting....
By killerroach on 6/27/2007 2:11:05 PM , Rating: 2
It's easy for open-source to have malware... and some of it even does. It's just easier to spot and take care of when you can just recompile it.


RE: Kinda upsetting....
By Scrogneugneu on 6/26/2007 7:22:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I run Vista and I still think this is a stupid idea.


Microsoft doesn't care. If you run it, you bought it, and they got your money. That's the market's way to say "I like your product". Personal opinion doesn't matter much.

See pretty much anything related to Sony to get the difference between thinking it's stupid with your head, and thinking it's stupid with your wallet.


RE: Kinda upsetting....
By darkpaw on 6/27/2007 9:03:09 AM , Rating: 2
Actually I didn't have to pay for it, it was included with my MS subscription package, which is happily paid for by one of my clients.

I wouldn't be using Vista if I had to buy it, but since I got it I happen to like it.


RE: Kinda upsetting....
By michael2k on 6/26/2007 12:02:11 PM , Rating: 1
Too bad reality doesn't synch with your vision.

1) PC sales, especially in the US, have been slowing:
http://news.com.com/PC+sales+expected+to+slow+in+2...
This translates to lower income for Microsoft.

2) Xbox 360 games still don't compensate for XBox 360 losses:
http://www.betanews.com/article/Huge_Xbox_360_Sale...
They may be narrowing the loss, but their entertainment/gaming division is still in the red after six years of operation.


RE: Kinda upsetting....
By arteekay on 6/26/2007 3:21:53 PM , Rating: 2
1. This link is 18 months old, and is talking about PC sales slowing in 2006. Hint: it's now 2007

2. link is 6 months old

Too bad your reality is stuck in the past.


RE: Kinda upsetting....
By michael2k on 6/26/2007 3:44:14 PM , Rating: 2
1) 2007 isn't over yet, so we don't have 2007 numbers. However we still have analysts predicting a little over 11% growth this year:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,133102-c,noteboo...
The first article I linked to referred to 2005... which saw a much hotter 15.8% growth. So yes, PC sales ARE slowing down.

2) Microsoft's own Q3 earnings report from 2007 states that they lost $315m this year in the entertainment division alone:
http://www.microsoft.com/msft/earnings/FY07/earn_r...

I somehow doubt that their next report (coming soon) will change that.


RE: Kinda upsetting....
By arteekay on 6/26/2007 4:25:52 PM , Rating: 1
1. First line of your linked source: "Analysts at iSuppli have increased predictions for PC sales in 2007, citing stronger-than-anticipated demand for laptops."

2. ignoring the obvious trend lends no credence to your doubts.


RE: Kinda upsetting....
By michael2k on 6/26/2007 6:14:50 PM , Rating: 3
Obvious trends?
1) 2005 saw 15+% growth
2) 2006 saw slower growth (forget the number)
3) 2007 will see 11+% growth
My claim of "slow growth" is true if 2007 does hit 11.8%
Stronger than expected laptop demand propelled the initial projections higher... from 9% (I believe) to 11%.

My doubts are irrelvant. Microsoft has published information about how much money they lose every quarter on the XBox, XBox 360, and Zune. They have only been profitable once, the one quarter that Halo 2 was released for the XBox. That is it.

PC sales are still strong, but if the slowdown trend does indeed continue, they will be hit hard in the pocketbook sooner or later.


RE: Kinda upsetting....
By peritusONE on 6/26/2007 7:21:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My claim of "slow growth" is true if 2007 does hit 11.8%

Umm, you never said slow growth in the beginning. You said:
quote:
1) PC sales, especially in the US, have been slowing:
http://news.com.com/PC+sales+expected+to+slow+in+2...
This translates to lower income for Microsoft.

From what you said, you implied that sales were slowing down, period. There's a difference between "slowing" and a "slow growth".


RE: Kinda upsetting....
By michael2k on 6/26/2007 7:41:46 PM , Rating: 2
Caught me in an error. I had meant slower growth, and not slowing. Does not change my message, however, Microsoft has to contend with less future income every year if the rate of growth is lower than expected.


RE: Kinda upsetting....
By Hawkido on 6/29/2007 12:10:37 PM , Rating: 2
First off your Capital hill math is silly.

If 100 PC's were sold in 2004 and there was a 15% growth for 2005 then 115 pcs were sold in 2005 then a 13% growth in 2006 for pc sales put them at ~129 for 2006 and with a projected 11% for 2007 will put them at 143 for the year.

Yes I can see how they may have to worry... because they are selling more year over year. Now factor in the PC replacement factor every 4 years (3 years for alot of businesses and users) there will be some higher percentage years and some lower percentage years. Not everyone will refresh their tech on the same year. There will come a day when the human population growth levels off and everyone has a computer. So at that point computer sales growth will be flat. But the tech refresh will still occur and they will still make sales.

You make it sound like growth is steadily declining and will eventually become a negative growth number and eventually no one will have a PC!!! OMG, what'll we do!!!

Oh, wait that's not ever going to happen unless we loose electricity as a source of power.

Scare tactics and blow hard politics... Anytime someone wants you to do something and uses fear as motivation, they are trying to stop you from thinking. Why do they not want you to think? I guess cause they want to do the thinking for you.


RE: Kinda upsetting....
By darkpaw on 6/26/2007 5:07:06 PM , Rating: 2
The rate of growth may be down 4%, but the overall numbers are much much higher. As the article notes, notebook sales were up 23% in the 1st quarter.


RE: Kinda upsetting....
RE: Kinda upsetting....
By Samus on 6/27/2007 5:27:36 AM , Rating: 2
now, please do halo 2.


RE: Kinda upsetting....
By copiedright on 6/26/2007 8:40:20 AM , Rating: 2
Microsoft has actually limited the functionality of something!

BTW, Halo 2 ran on the Original Xbox which uses directX <9. So why can't XP run it?

And people wonder why many others hate Microsoft!


RE: Kinda upsetting....
By BladeVenom on 6/26/2007 9:36:30 AM , Rating: 2
The Xbox was DirectX 8.1.


RE: Kinda upsetting....
By Proteusza on 6/26/2007 1:53:23 PM , Rating: 2
Only MS and its subsidiaries could port a game from a P3 733 with a Geforce 3 (the XBoX1, almost literally) to a modern Vista PC and make it run badly.


RE: Kinda upsetting....
By RMSe17 on 6/26/2007 10:29:00 AM , Rating: 2
Halo 2 PC is not DX10 only. If you look at the requirements, http://www.microsoft.com/games/pc/halo2.aspx#sysre...

You will notice that it needs an nVidia GeForce 6100 or a Radeon X700. Both of these are definitely not DX10 cards ;)

So the game will run on low grade DX9 hardware...


RE: Kinda upsetting....
By Xavian on 6/26/2007 10:44:33 AM , Rating: 2
but... it still requires Vista?


RE: Kinda upsetting....
By darkpaw on 6/26/2007 12:00:05 PM , Rating: 5
Halo2 and Shadowrun both have nothing to do with DX10. They were artifically limited to running on Vista and these types of hacks remove those artificial limitations.


RE: Kinda upsetting....
By Pirks on 6/26/2007 3:50:12 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
it still requires Vista?
nope, Halo 2 was cracked to run on XP as well, just search demonoid or whatever your favorite p2p is


RE: Kinda upsetting....
By DeepBlue1975 on 6/26/07, Rating: 0
RE: Kinda upsetting....
By JBird7986 on 6/26/2007 9:13:12 AM , Rating: 2
As someone who has recently switched to Vista, I happen to like it. It's new, different, and the requirements aren't that bad. I'm using about 10% more memory than I did under XP (23 v. 33%), which isn't too bad considering all of the additional things Vista has to do/monitors, like Aero. I think that it is getting a bad rap because it's unfamiliar and it means change.


RE: Kinda upsetting....
By EODetroit on 6/26/2007 9:24:40 AM , Rating: 3
Probably it has a bad rap because it costs money, which could easily be not spent by keeping XP, considering the only benefit to Vista over XP is Aero and a few crappy games, and is itself more bloated and slower than XP to boot.

If Vista was free or cheap, it would have a much better rap, because that's all its worth right now to someone that already has XP.


RE: Kinda upsetting....
By peritusONE on 6/26/2007 7:24:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
considering the only benefit to Vista over XP is Aero and a few crappy games, and is itself more bloated and slower than XP to boot.

That statement alone shows that you do not know what you are talking about.


RE: Kinda upsetting....
By kextyn on 6/26/2007 9:26:24 AM , Rating: 3
New and different are not good reasons to shell out hundreds of dollars for a new operating system. You said yourself that it requires more memory to do stupid crap you don't need (monitoring crap, aero, etc). The fact is XP works and MS is forcing people to upgrade to Vista to get things like DX10.

MS made a mistake, and that was releasing XP SP2. They should have had Vista ready to go at that time and then they wouldn't have a problem with getting people to adopt the new OS because they would have reason to do so. XP was around longer than any other MS OS without a replacement and now it's been polished and refined and people are used to it and know how to use it. So why would we want to upgrade to something new and different that isn't proven and has compatibility issues?


RE: Kinda upsetting....
By JBird7986 on 6/26/2007 9:50:49 PM , Rating: 2
Just as an FYI, when I closed a couple of programs that I launch on startup (such as Steam), my memory usage dropped to to around 20%, back about what it was under XP (with Aero and the other stuff on).


RE: Kinda upsetting....
By PaxtonFettel on 6/26/2007 11:00:47 AM , Rating: 5
Umm, that's no reason to switch OS's, especially when XP works in many areas that, for all intents and purposes Vista just doesn't.

Also, you do realise that it's clogging up nearly 50% more memory (10/23=0.44) than XP don't you? It's using up 10% more of your total system memory, which is frankly rubbish, you shouldn't need to use 1/3 of your systems resources just to run the OS.


RE: Kinda upsetting....
By arteekay on 6/26/2007 3:25:03 PM , Rating: 3
Look up Superfetch. Once you understand cache, you can decide to slow your system down by disabling it.


RE: Kinda upsetting....
By DeepBlue1975 on 6/26/2007 4:44:59 PM , Rating: 2
That's true.
Cache system in vista is more intelligent than XP's. Instead of just letting your memory hang around there being unused, it takes advantage of it by dynamically increasing cache size and decreasing it as applications start to need it.
It makes your system feel more responsive when you use the more or less the same applications, provided you've got enough hardware resources to let Vista stretch its legs.

Nevertheless, this and other advantages I did find by just testing RC versions, do not, at least not yet, build up a strong enough reason to upgrade from XP.
I know I will end up upgrading, and probably in less than a year from now, but I just will not do it quite right now.


RE: Kinda upsetting....
By leexgx on 6/27/2007 1:05:11 PM , Rating: 2
i think he not talking about superfetch Filling the cache up what he more likey talking about is how much ram is been used (ignore the cache as that is useable at Any time its not resized it is realy Free ram that has be Pre-cache ready for programs)

F knows how but my vista is useing 1.8gb ram now (thats out of my 4gb of ram) Vista servers are useing way more then thay should be hmm

this install of vista is 3 days old i got
3 IE boxs open
1 opera box less then 100mb now (but i not copyed my tabs from XP yet so i expect that to be 170MB-200MB but thats 20-30 tabs open not the operas fault there)
msn msg is useing like 111mb ram
TS 22mb
Xfire 55mb
grr PunkBuster NEW anticheat service why does it need 55mb thats daft
adding all that up does seem to make an big number

on XP all this stuff running i mite be toping out at 1gb ram use Now (not even installed an anti virus yet ) apart from running games i Never got my OS to use that much ram just by Norm useing the PC in XP

if i sell computers with Vista i not sell one with Less then 2gb ram or pc be crap and slow min spec PC for VIsta is realy {Dual core CPU / 2gb ram} for an gameing PC if you do not like pageing/choppy game then you need 3gb of ram


RE: Kinda upsetting....
By AlexWade on 6/26/2007 9:27:35 AM , Rating: 2
I have Vista, and I hate it with a passion. The 64-bit version, which was supposed to be the version Vista was written in, is broken out of the box.

In Vista x64, quite often when you ask to open a 32-bit program, Vista will have trouble opening it. The task manager shows the program is using between 104k and 120k. About 2 minutes later, everything works fine. If you try to open the same program during this 2 minute window, the task manager shows that process with more memory, but still won't open. If you terminate the original process, you will still have to wait 2 minutes. Other 32-bit processes are also stalled for 2 minutes.

XP x64 never had any of these problems. Vista sucks. It looks pretty, but it sucks. It is harder to use, more confusing, and more annoying. I hated XP at first too, but I grew to love it because it worked. The more I use Vista, the more I hate it. The 32-bit memory bug is a serious flaw. I tell everyone to hold out on Vista to the bitter end. You'll be happier that you did.


RE: Kinda upsetting....
By smokedturkey on 6/26/2007 9:48:24 AM , Rating: 2
Dude, if you are having that many problems with Vista x64, something is wrong. I can run ANYTHING on Vista x64. Haven't had any problems with software or hardware. Even my SCT X-cal2 software runs, even though SCT said Vista wasn't supported. The only things I couldn't get working was any wireless adapter, and my MP780 printer because there are no drivers. big deal.
Everything else is flawless. I suggest people download Vlite and take control of their Vista. http://www.vlite.net/about.html
I have Zero problems running this and actually took alot of the MS crap out of the OS.Regardless, Vista runs fine without this as well. Perhaps you need more memory, 2 gigs is perfect.


RE: Kinda upsetting....
By darkpaw on 6/26/2007 10:29:07 AM , Rating: 2
Yah you definately have some problems that are not caused by Vista.

The only things I haven't been able to get to run properly are SLI (thanks to Nvidia's craptastic drivers/4gb mem), full support on my Audigy card (again thanks to Creative), and Nero which is trying to force purchasing superbloat nero 7 ultrablah to upgrade (no thanks, replaced it with a free program).


RE: Kinda upsetting....
By mikecel79 on 6/26/2007 9:30:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In fact, I read even Dell was thinking about stopping to sell vista enabled notebooks and switch back to XP.

I call total BS. Got a link to back that up? No way will Dell stop selling Vista notebooks.


RE: Kinda upsetting....
By Spivonious on 6/26/2007 9:59:44 AM , Rating: 2
Especially since MS is no longer manufacturing OEM XP.


RE: Kinda upsetting....
By leexgx on 6/27/2007 1:08:53 PM , Rating: 2
yes thay are its the End of the year thay probly be stop selling XP OEM


RE: Kinda upsetting....
By darkpaw on 6/26/2007 10:30:02 AM , Rating: 2
Dell is offering XP on a few specific systems due to customer requests, but they are still pushing Vista on almost all of the systems.


New OS, Same comments.
By Gatt on 6/26/2007 10:25:45 AM , Rating: 5
Win95- "I'm not upgrading to that, it takes more memory, more CPU, and it's not Dos!"

Win98- "I'm not upgrading to that, it takes more memory, more CPU, and Win95 does everything it does just fine!"

Win Millenium- "I'm not upgrading to that, it takes more memory, more CPU, runs slower, is less stable, and Win98 does everything just fine!"(To be fair, Millenium really did suck.)

Win XP- "I'm not upgrading to that, it takes more memory, more CPU, runs slower, and there's no true Dos prompt, and Win98 does everything just fine!"

Win Vista- Rinse, repeat.

Same comments with every generation, same complaints.




RE: New OS, Same comments.
By darkpaw on 6/26/2007 10:34:10 AM , Rating: 1
Lol, wish I could rate this up cause its so true. Millenium is the only case where this shit was ever true. It was nothing more then Win98 with some beta features for XP sold as a full Windows package. Some of the features (like system restore) were so broken, it wasn't even funny.

Remember having a friend bring me his dell system that had Millendium on it cause he couldn't find where 12gb of his 20gb HDD had gone. System restore had used up all of it and there wasn't a terribly easy way to disable it in Millenium that I can remember.


RE: New OS, Same comments.
By Alexvrb on 6/26/2007 6:56:57 PM , Rating: 2
Actually ME was pretty solid if you were careful and tweaked it a bit. It was a matter of a few mouse clicks to disable system restore, or you could just limit it to 1% if you preferred. I had a 3-year-old install on one of my machines before upgrading it to XP, no problems. I'll agree it was a lot more sensitive to borderline hardware and problematic software/drivers, in other words it was easier to break.

I never recommended overclocking with it either, I could run much more aggressive memory timings and push my FSB higher on 98SE. However, the original 98 was pretty crappy too, everyone seems to forget about the issues Second Edition fixed. Same thing with 95, remember the early versions didn't even have FAT32. Same again with XP, everyone seems to forget about early XP (before the service packs) and its issues.

I'm sure Vista will also improve with time. Early adopters often have issues, if you don't want to deal with the growing pains, don't upgrade yet.


RE: New OS, Same comments.
By rdeegvainl on 6/26/2007 10:40:05 AM , Rating: 2
WIN ME was absolutely the worst thing ever, except for maybe chocolate covered hard disk candy. Wait that wasn't made, so it is still the worst thing ever.
To be fair also, the majority aren't saying they will never upgrade to Vista, they are just waiting for it to be smoothed out. The same with all the other systems. And i say if someone wants to wait for the more computer to be alot cheaper before dishing out the cash for Vista, more power to them. All that does is put more presure on software makers to make better software for vista, and that is a win for all those who have vista.


RE: New OS, Same comments.
By Xavian on 6/26/07, Rating: 0
RE: New OS, Same comments.
By arteekay on 6/26/2007 3:28:12 PM , Rating: 3
You instantly lose credibility when you stretch to make such a tenuous comparison.

Vista is far from the new Millenium Edition, a 10 second look under the hood will confirm that.


RE: New OS, Same comments.
By kalak on 6/26/2007 11:08:51 AM , Rating: 1
So.. Microsoft continues to do it wrong again and again...
:-)) just joking....

quote:
Win XP- "I'm not upgrading to that, it takes more memory, more CPU, runs slower, and there's no true Dos prompt, and Win98 does everything just fine!"


That's not true. XP is a lot more stable than previous Windows. And I can't see a better point in Vista.


RE: New OS, Same comments.
By paddedroom on 6/26/2007 11:18:32 AM , Rating: 2
His point was when XP was initially announced that that was the general consensus among those crazy luddites (j/k on that last part).


RE: New OS, Same comments.
By kalak on 7/6/2007 7:52:51 AM , Rating: 2
Why rate me down ??? I really don't take this...


RE: New OS, Same comments.
By JoeBanana on 6/26/2007 12:41:58 PM , Rating: 2
Well if u add complexity to OS you loose some memory. But is that extra coding ever used is a different story. I personally liked win 98. It was fast and programs did what they were told. XP was more stable but it was a mess. Now I am on Ubuntu where programs do what they are told ,are stable and good looking. But I am in site developing,C and starcraft and I know this is not a gaming platform.

But I also think that it's wrong to install in game blockage for XP. The funny thing though is that MS has the biggest competitor to Vista in XP. He just needs to convince the world that that extra coding is needed.


RE: New OS, Same comments.
By Screwballl on 6/26/07, Rating: -1
RE: New OS, Same comments.
By 91TTZ on 6/26/2007 1:11:10 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, the Win95SE>Win98 upgrade wasn't much of an upgrade at all. That was just Microsoft trying to resell you the same crap.

Windows Millenium was total garbage.

People were actually waiting for Windows XP, since the 95/98/Millenium OS was so outdated.

XP has been holding up well.


RE: New OS, Same comments.
By darkpaw on 6/26/2007 5:04:40 PM , Rating: 2
The Win95SE/Win98 comparision is prety funny considering I remember using an article called something like Windows 98 - $99 of duct tape. I cited that in a report I wrote for a business writing class in college. Damn, I can't believe that was almost 10 years ago alread.


Upgrade Phobes
By SuperSport on 6/26/2007 1:07:00 PM , Rating: 2
It always makes me laugh when I hear about people complaining that they have to pay to get an upgrade . You are probably the same people still driving your Chevrolet GEO 's because they barely get the job done. No air conditioning, stereo is broke, drives like a tin can, won't make it over some mountain passes, but you'll be damned if you are going to pay to upgrade to a new car. Just because it Looks nicer, Drives nicer, comes with a Warranty, has New Features, and moves at speeds acceptable on todays highways?

Yeah, what was I thinking...

Stop complaining and shell out a few bucks on new hardware and a new OS, or move over to the slow lane so the others of us can pass and stop breathing your smog .




RE: Upgrade Phobes
By DeepBlue1975 on 6/26/2007 1:24:11 PM , Rating: 2
One thing is to upgrade your hardware when you need it.
But other, very different one, is pay to go through the burden of reinstalling all your apps, backup your existing data, customizing your OS again implying hundreds of dollars and little benefits.
To compare Vista vs. XP is not nearly the same as comparing an old car with a new BMW.
It's not bad, I tested the betas and realease clients, but it's nowhere near as good to justify upgrading. All you get is aero, which I don't like, and still some compatibility problems with the latest and greatest hardware because graphics card companies didn't want or couldn't get their drivers polished in time.
How would you feel spending some thousands of dollars on the highest end possible PC, hundreds on the latest microsoft OS, and then find out that your SLI or crossfire setup is, at best, less stable than it is in windows XP?
Surely that's not MS's fault, but it's really a reason to wait till everything is a bit more mature in Vista than it is now.


RE: Upgrade Phobes
By GoodBytes on 6/27/2007 11:27:55 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sick and tired of people saying that the only that Vista has new is Aero. It's has MAJOR improvements on features, and has a couple of new features, including features that should had been there since the first OS ever created. Like... SKIP and RETRY button. Finally for the first time when you delete a folder with files on, and there is one file that cannot be deleted, you can retry or skip the file.

Also, many installation software (specially related to hardware) requires you to reboot. How many times I accidentally click on OK thinking that I must remind myself of restarting the comp rather then forcing a reboot and lose ALL my work. With Vista you can cancel this action, as you will be asked if you want to cancel the restart as some application ask you something (usually "Do you want to save?") or skip all that and force a reboot. Moreover, a feature that was asked A LOT and now, for some reason no one seams to care, independent volume control per application. In addition, you have faster startup of application with or without super-fetch. I don't mind waiting 5-10 sec more at startup if I know I'll save 5min total by starting up applications. Moreover, if you have a new powerful computer (not some 200$ Dell LAPTOP), you will find that due to PCI-Express and SATA optical drive and/or SATA HDD Windows XP SP1 and bellow is worst, yes I repeat WORST then WinME. The OS is totally unusable, and a living joke. And hell to update to SP2 so that you have something working nicely. Vista in 10-20min install and your printer works right away or after a Windows update, no more problems, it just works. No more inserting 20 disk to install every drivers then you can finally install your apps.

Also Vista comes with all you need from basic applications to partition your drive safely (unlike XP where it can screw up), you have performence monitoring system, interesting backup features and diagnostic tools for Windows Vista Setup and Benchmark index. For the Benchmark index feature, maybe it doesn't appeal to you (not me as well), but for many users that buys games and software they can easily see what needs to be changed in the computer to use the software, and also be able to get a good computer at a store and not a 3 year old computer that a crappy sells man wants you to buy and take full advantage of your lack of knowledge in this domain.

As improvements, you can now start using your computer while your computer start-up the applications that runs at startup. This was something that was impossible in previous version of Windows, as the Start Menu was either not accessible, or disappear as you browse it. If you try click on "my computer" you have a white window and you had to wait until Windows finish loaded everything so you can access it. Also they removed IE crap from the windows management. You can see performence increase when you browse folder and files. When you drag windows/application around, the mouse and window move at the same time. In XP and bellow you see that the window what not fallowing the mouse, rather the mouse was fallowing the clicked area of the window. Small details but it counts.

Finally when you start big applications or videos you can access the folders meanwhile it loads. In Windows XP and older versions, Explorer window was not responding until the file or application is fully loaded.

If you think that Vista is expensive, which I can agree... And have too many version (which I don't agree as XP has more (6 XP versions VS 5 Vista version) [XP version: Home, Pro, Pro 64-bit, Tablet PC, Media Center, Starter (6) || Vista:Starter, Home Basic, Home Premium, Business and Ultimate (5)]
But frankly I think they are 2 versions that should be considered.
Home Premium and Business.

If you don't care about advance backup feature and remote desktop, go with Home Premium, if you don't care about Media Center go with Business. If you are not doing heavy work and don't need over 4Gb of RAM, install 32-bit version. People that do need 64-bit let them work with Microsoft and fixing the bugs under that platform, so that the day 4GB will be a joke like 512MB of RAM is now, then 64-bit will be ready.

As for price, just get the update version, format your HDD, and install Vista 2 times (one fresh install, and the other upgrade) It says ON THE BOX, "upgrades Windows 2000, XP or VISTA." Then get a freeware utility and image your partition. Next time in 15min you re-install Vista with a fresh copy. Like if you paid twice or about the price for the retail. AND if you activate Windows BEFORE imaging your drive, Windows will stay activated when you restore.

More on the price issue, think of that:
- Home Premium = XP Home + XP Tablet PC + XP MediaCenter + 64-bit version + added new feature and improvements on all versions.
- Business = XP Pro + XP Tablet PC + XP Pro 64bit + added new feature and improvements on all versions.

So it's not REALLY a bad deal.

Now some of you think that upgrading is a bad idea as some issues can occur, like windows XP upgrade (remember that!)
Well Vista basically copy the registry items into memory that is not linked to the OS and non-Windows (applications that doesn't come with Windows) application, and formats your hdd and put fresh new files of Vista, and restore your registry and applications. So when you do an upgrade Vista from Vista it copies nothing as application and registry is well blank (in the sense that nothing that is not-Vista related exists). It won't touch drivers registry items as it knows you need new drivers for Vista. So yea some work, but it once and your set, and think you rip-off MS a bit.


RE: Upgrade Phobes
By leexgx on 6/27/2007 1:52:42 PM , Rating: 2
3 inprovements in Vista
Superfetch (it Pre loads the program you use into cache works Very well)/ DX 10 hmm / 3D Rendering of desktop (Aero) good as well/ thay are the ones that stand out
not so inprovments
extreme amount of ram that has to be used by services (any thing less then 1gb ram makes the PC like it was made 15 years ago if you want boltware (Norton e.g.) installed as well you realy should have 2gb) if your gameing you Realy need 3gb of ram (2x2gb kit best used then mixing 2x512 and 2x1gb ram sticks)

not all games work correctly {mosty EA games} (alot fo them Need to run as admin)

Base driver still suck an little but thay probly did when XP came out (Nivida cant be arsed to make them work probly not just Work why M$ Give them whql certs i dono)

allso System resore on Vista now uses Shadow service now even if the Ver of Vista does not alow you to use it on some users desktops the Vol shadow server can get stuck in an Loop when it trys to shadow more then it can use thats been set by system restore, makes Alot of disk use for along time degrading the performace of the pc
--

allso it should be if you do not need more then 3gb of ram use 32bit if you want to use more then 3gb use Vista 64 (windows 32 at best can only see 3gb of ram not 4gb)


RE: Upgrade Phobes
By GoodBytes on 6/27/2007 3:45:57 PM , Rating: 2
About the RAM...
No that's XP issue, not Vista.
If you have the issue with Vista 32-bit. It could also be an issue with your motherboard.


RE: Upgrade Phobes
By DEVGRU on 6/26/2007 2:26:48 PM , Rating: 1
Dude, thats the most asinine analogy EVER. LMAO.

Vista is NOT an upgrade, at best, its a lateral step if not an outright DOWNgrade.

MS is smoking some serious crack plain and simple.

1. EULA and cost are Vista's current biggest detractors from the start.
2. XP does EVERYTHING Vista does, except Vista costs $400 more. Microsoft apparently believes slapping lipstick on a pig (Aeroglass) will drive the 'clueless masses' with "Ooooh, shiny". Pffff.
3. Vista's design leaves a LOT to be desired. Many promised features are missing or non-functional, MS's complete redesign of the hardware abstraction layer is one of the reasons why Nvidia, ATI, and Creative (among MANY others) are having driver problems, all in the name of laughable 'increased security' in Vista. If your blaming ATI, Creative etc. about their drivers - your a MORON. You don't think these companies have been working around the clock to make stable, performing drivers, WAY before Vista was even released?? They were working hand-in-hand with MS engineers for MONTHS pre-release RC1, and the drivers STILL aren't there. That blame is 100% in the MS camp.
4. Everyone with a clue KNOWS DX10 has NOTHING to do with Vista's 'advanced security' or 'design', it was just a way to FORCE people to spend the money and upgrade.
5. Vista DRM. 'Nuff Said.

If MS wants to sell their newest baby, it needs to start thinking about the people that WANT to buy it, not their bottom line.


RE: Upgrade Phobes
By arteekay on 6/26/2007 3:40:09 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, thats the most nonsensical list EVER. LMAO

1. Hardware and software compatibility are the biggest detractors.
2. Look up ASLR, Superfetch, Readyboost and Readyboot for starters, then come back.
3. Nvidia and creative dropped the ball, ATI was far more prepared for the launch and continues to perfect their drivers. The blame is 100% in the hardware manufactures camp.
4. You don't seem to have a clue about DirectX 10
5. FUD, picked up from a ABM'er's post, Do your own research and educate yourself before posting again. Start here:
http://msmvps.com/blogs/chrisl/archive/2007/01/25/...


RE: Upgrade Phobes
By odiHnaD on 6/26/2007 5:46:28 PM , Rating: 3
Sir, please read and research a bit before opening your mouth:

http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/pretty-vista.ars

http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/vista-under-the-...

you may not like or ever use Vista, but try being subjective about things instead of being blindly biased and spreading FUD


RE: Upgrade Phobes
By mars777 on 6/27/2007 12:49:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
1. EULA and cost are Vista's current biggest detractors from the start.


Ok, all true here.

quote:
2. XP does EVERYTHING Vista does, except Vista costs $400 more. Microsoft apparently believes slapping lipstick on a pig (Aeroglass) will drive the 'clueless masses' with "Ooooh, shiny". Pffff.


This is not true they have the Ready* futures, but the Boot one at least for me is causing slow boots if combined with the Fetch.

quote:
3. Vista's design leaves a LOT to be desired. Many promised features are missing or non-functional .....


Futures are missing but, user-side drivers are not for the sake of security but for hiding the requirements of building the *your point 5.* into them with a 'feature' - that creates trouble.

quote:
4. Everyone with a clue KNOWS DX10 has NOTHING to do with Vista's 'advanced security' or 'design', it was just a way to FORCE people to spend the money and upgrade.


Why would DX have something to do with the OS? It's written in C and acesses hardware. It could run on linux if they wanted. - and i think there is a software group that is working on a port to XP.

quote:
5. Vista DRM. 'Nuff Said.

Sadly... they spend time to actually support the TPM (Trusted Platform Module). Build DRM into drivers (Nvidia & Ati - to prevent video recording of DRM formats). Remove direct access to sound hardware to prevent sniffing of audio from DRM sound formats or audio tracks from video formats (and break Creative EAX too :P).

Well, I don't care much any more. After a few months on Vista I switched definitely on Ubuntu. 6 month have passed and I am loving it. Sold my copy of Vista...


RE: Upgrade Phobes
By odiHnaD on 6/27/2007 8:52:49 PM , Rating: 2
You sold your copy of Vista that you already activated? (If you were running it for a few months you would have had to) I sure to feel sorry for the buyer...


Glad to see XP moving out
By inorganicmatter on 6/26/2007 9:24:32 AM , Rating: 1
The way Vista handles DX9 and the new DX10 stuff is so much superior to anything XP/2K offers. If the industry is allowed to stagnate, progression is hindered. I'm glad Microsoft is recognizing that moving forward in technology is more important than support their l33t customer base who insist that XP is better than Vista (also the same crowd that insisted they would never upgrade from 2K to XP). This is how it should be - old technology is unsupported and provided only by the community.




RE: Glad to see XP moving out
By EODetroit on 6/26/2007 9:45:23 AM , Rating: 2
Actually until some games actually fully utilize DX10, XP and 2K will for all intents and purposes for "my crowd", will remain better than Vista.

And yes, I do run 2K still on my old box. I two-box World of Warcraft characters, one on my 2.8 P4 running 2K, with a gig of ram and old WD 80gig 7200rpm hard drive... and one on my E4300 running XP, 2 gigs of ram, and a 150gig 10k rpm raptor.

But the 2K machine loads into the game and into instances significantly faster than the much superior hardware. Why? I haven't figured it out yet... but one of the reasons may be that XP is in some ways inferior to 2K. Granted due to the lesser CPU and video card in the 2K box, the frame rate once the game is loaded is a lot worse.

But I can't say that XP is better than 2K, because in one important way, World of Warcraft runs better on 2K for me. And if you don't think level loading times are important, just zone out of Gruul's Lair on a PvP server when the opposite faction is outside... if you load slow, you're dead before you can do a damn thing... if you load fast you can run back inside and wait for re-inforcements.

I plan on installing 2K on my E4300 on a second hard drive to see if I can duplicate the whole level loading thing on my other computer one of these days, while maintaining the superior framerates that result from that computer's superior hardware. If successful, I won't even be using XP any more, I'll run 2K on both computers.


RE: Glad to see XP moving out
By inorganicmatter on 6/26/2007 9:54:41 AM , Rating: 1
You obviously do not have something configured correctly on your XP machine if you say 2K loads games faster. I've got Vista loaded on my Seagate 7200.10 drive with AHCI and caching properly enabled, and it absolutely flies. Load times in WoW are nearly nonexistent: 5-7 seconds at the very most. I have a feeling that your 2K machine seems "faster" because of driver or BIOS misconfiguration on your XP machine. ;)

As for the gentleman below who wants a compelling reason to switch - one word: SuperFetch . That feature alone is worth an OS upgrade.


RE: Glad to see XP moving out
By smokedturkey on 6/26/2007 10:18:26 AM , Rating: 2
and I totally disabled Superfelch and my Vista still flies. I hate long startup times. Vista can also be forced to use as little as 256 megs of memory, although I advise at least 512 which most have or can afford with memory prices so low. There are lots of tweaks that can be made to Vista, most services are a waste IMHO for the casual user/gamer. I use Ultimate BTW


RE: Glad to see XP moving out
By paddedroom on 6/26/2007 10:34:54 AM , Rating: 3
Wow. I get better performance and I'm using linux... although to be far linux isn't really ever out of development, and ideally major features/performance tweaks get put into the product at least every 3 months.


RE: Glad to see XP moving out
By arteekay on 6/26/2007 3:32:43 PM , Rating: 2
Fact: Hard drives are slower than RAM
Fact: unused RAM is wasted RAM

You've disabled the single biggest speed improvement in Vista, therefore you're in no position to make claims about speed.


RE: Glad to see XP moving out
By sxr7171 on 6/27/2007 1:56:54 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah. I see in XP that even though I have 2GB memory, my peak commit charge is never higher than 600MB. Why not use that extra wasted RAM to load up things faster?


RE: Glad to see XP moving out
By oralpain on 6/26/2007 12:18:28 PM , Rating: 2
I upgraded from XP to 2k a few years ago. 2K can do everything XP can do, and it can do them just as fast, while using fewer resources. I might need some third party apps, but in general, these are superior to the stuff microsoft integrates.

Right now, Vista is slower and buggier than XP/2K.

Right now, none of the Vista only games use anything new. They are artifically prevented from running on XP/2k. They are not moving forward with anything.

I'm all for progress. I am not all for waste. I am not going to jump on the newest thing becasue it is the newest thing. It should be demonstratably superior. If it's not, it's not progress, it's change for the sake of change (and money), and that is waste.


I will ask again....
By kalak on 6/26/2007 9:34:09 AM , Rating: 2
Give me a reason to migrate to Vista....
All of the great features of Vista that Microsoft touts require more computing power and speed than many PCs have today. And many of that "features and visually stunning effects" can be installed on XP.
Eventually, I'm certain that Vista will evolve into a more solid and trustworthy operating system, but for now.....




RE: I will ask again....
By smokedturkey on 6/26/2007 10:22:50 AM , Rating: 2
Most computers today are at least Pentium 3 1ghz and above and 256 memory. As far as features, the Aero Glass effect is actually faster than the standard interface. Vista is so compatible with hardware it's not even funny. It's a culmination of years of support all rolled into one. Now, that is 32 bit x64 on the other hand you might have a few things that need drivers but support has exceeded expectations thus far. More and more hardware has drivers and software is being pumped out more and more everyday. To all those who cry about Radeon or Nvidia drivers not working well in Vista, I say phooey. I have used both cards and have x64 and games run and look fantastic.


RE: I will ask again....
By smokedturkey on 6/26/2007 10:48:56 AM , Rating: 2
PClinuxOS also runs damn fast. I love the new features although I want to see an x64 version.


RE: I will ask again....
By JoeBanana on 6/26/2007 1:53:27 PM , Rating: 2
That's not a reason. OS's had that for years. You had problems only if u collected very exotic hardware. And faster interface? What's with that.lol Although it looks nicer at the cost of graphic acceleration card. MS needs money so he will continue too force new OSs. 3.1 to 95 was great. 98 to XP was good. Rest is money hunting.


not for gamers yet
By knowom on 6/26/2007 11:12:52 AM , Rating: 2
From all the benchmarks I've come across XP has been better for gaming honestly the only reason to switch to vista is DX10 eventually once they start making games that are DX10 only and not backwards compatible with DX9 until then vista isn't worth the 10 cents or so it costs micronopoly to burned, print, and packaged it.




RE: not for gamers yet
By paddedroom on 6/26/2007 11:23:56 AM , Rating: 2
You have to understand that the graphics card manufacturers have had 5 years to fine tune their drivers (and get developers to tune the games) for XP. Give nvidia and ati some time as there are some architectural changes for drivers in vista


RE: not for gamers yet
By EODetroit on 6/27/2007 9:37:08 AM , Rating: 2
I am giving Nvidia and ATI time. All the time they need. When the games finally run on Vista better than XP, I'll buy Vista. Not a minute before. If that causes MS a chicken-and-egg scenario, they should have thought of that before delivering an OS with no features people like me would want.


XP is old
By thebrown13 on 6/26/2007 12:24:42 PM , Rating: 2
XP is legacy. Quit your crying and get a recent OS if you want to play the newest games. Why should they waste money supporting an old OS for your dumb ass?




RE: XP is old
By DeepBlue1975 on 6/26/2007 12:54:44 PM , Rating: 2
What you say would make sense if we were talking about Vista - specific games that rely on the OS so much that they wouldn't run in XP at all.
This article talks about a game which is supposed to be "Vista only" but then it's found that with just a hack you can run the same game in XP!

Doesn't that make you wonder why ayone would want to put an artificial restriction on the game when it could be sold to both XP and Vista users?


RE: XP is old
By EODetroit on 6/27/2007 9:34:30 AM , Rating: 2
Newest games? LOL maybe if the 2 or 3 "Vista-only" games didn't suck, it would be a consideration. But they DO suck. And people keep patching them to run on XP anyways. So "your dumb ass" bought Vista... that's no reason for me to waste my money too, it offers me nothing I need or want. The only ones crying are the Vista early-adopters, everyone else is laughing at your "dumb ass" for being taken in by MS hype.


RE: Kinda upsetting....
By DeepBlue1975 on 6/26/2007 10:47:43 AM , Rating: 2
It was some weeks ago, the text was in the lines of this link, but I think this isn't the original article I've read. :(
I've read that. How trustworthy the source was or if it just was a hoax I can't be sure about, but the multiple bits I've found here and there of OEMs complaining about the lack of Vista's acceptance by the public as a preloaded OS lead me to believe that it was likely true, or at least at some point.

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39...

I could be wrong, and if that's the case, I'll stand corrected... But I didn't mean to post any BS at all.




RE: Kinda upsetting....
By DeepBlue1975 on 6/26/2007 11:02:49 AM , Rating: 2
Some more related to what I've said here:

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39...

Nevertheless, seems I remembered it mostly wrong (it's not that Dell wants to stop Vista's sells as I've said before, they're just providing an escape route because they know many people don't want it and prefer XP instead) but the fact is that Dell and some other OEMs like Asus are not feeling that happy about Vista's acceptance, and Dell in particular is allowing customers to choose XP in some of their machines.


Good Sales Tactic
By spillai on 6/27/2007 11:31:38 AM , Rating: 1
Maybe 1 % of crazy customers buy Vista to play this game.But they may lose 10% when they stop manufacture it for XP.Anyway MS has something in mind which will turnout later.

Satheesh
www.knowledgevibes.com




Upgrade
By General Disturbance on 6/29/2007 11:30:24 AM , Rating: 1
Will you losers stop crying and just upgrade your OS...god.

"wwwwaaaaa...I spent $50 on Windows 3.1 and havent made that kind of money since because I've been in my Granda's basement."

"wwaaaaa...I have no idea what a business model is and think MS should spend billions so I can play Crytek on Dos 5.1"

"wwwaaaaaa...I have a subconscious belief that MS is GOD and as a god should be able to do any obscure little op I can think of....and they should do it for free...wwwwaaaaa"

"wwwaaaaa...I can't handle point and click and or even understand HOW to write code and I crashed my OS like a monkey banging away at the keyboard...MS help me be cause I don't want to learn anything wwwwwaaaaaa"

GET A JOB, spend the couple of hundred bucks, and upgrade...you...LOSER!




"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki