New Catalyst Hotfix

[apoppin]

for gaming keys

for gaming

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: apoppin

You are missing out on a much better OS for gaming than XP is now. Vista is 100% stable. Unfortunately not all of its detractors are.
-i have zero problem with vista gaming

Vista is hardly a better gaming platform. It sucks up far more resources than XP did and its new driver model has brought in numerous incompatibilities with games. Thanks to Vista WoW now crashes on me, when it did not (on the same machine) with XP.

Saying Vista is 100% stable would imply that they don't need to release the numerous updates (that they do) or require any sort of service pack (which it does). Vista is less stable than XP and as I do system administration for a living I know exactly what I am talking about.

 

[error8]

Never had big problems with Vista and I'm gaming on it since December 2007. I never had a single crash in games because of Vista and I played almost all of them, released during this time. A glitch here and there happened, but this is a situation that XP had it too. Anyway, the support for XP will be taken out by Microsoft shortly, so let's see what will you all do ( Vista haters ) when this happens.

 

[ZimZum]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: apoppin

You are missing out on a much better OS for gaming than XP is now. Vista is 100% stable. Unfortunately not all of its detractors are.
-i have zero problem with vista gaming

Vista is hardly a better gaming platform. It sucks up far more resources than XP did and its new driver model has brought in numerous incompatibilities with games. Thanks to Vista WoW now crashes on me, when it did not (on the same machine) with XP.

Saying Vista is 100% stable would imply that they don't need to release the numerous updates (that they do) or require any sort of service pack (which it does). Vista is less stable than XP and as I do system administration for a living I know exactly what I am talking about.

This is not necessarily a Vista issue. Could easily be a video driver or probelm with the game itself. The vast majority of crashes that get blamed on vista are caused by 3rd party drivers and applications.

If Blizzard puts out WOW and says hey, "WOW" works in Vista". Its not Microsofts responsibility to make sure it does work in Vista, its Blizzard's.

 

[BenSkywalker]

WoW has no problems at all under Vista, not sure what he is talking about honestly.

 

[MichaelD]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: MichaelD

Originally posted by: Spicedaddy
Vista sucks, bla bla bla bla...

I'm sure FC2 willll work fine in your XP DX9, but guess what, it also works fine in Vista DX9.

And Vista is so much better than XP on good hardware. (performance and stability wise)


NOW GO DEFRAG YOUR XP BOX!

Ironically, in every "XX Game doesn't work right" thread I read, DX10 is always mentioned. Oh yeah...DX10 is exclusive to VISTA, not XP or any other OS.

So while you and all other Vista Athletic Supporters say "Vista is awesome...but X Game under DX10 needs work" what you're REALLY saying is "This game blows when run on Vista."

DX10=Vista=Busted Games.

We are saying you have no clue what you are missing and you are talking as one has either no experience with Vista or an inability to understand it

Keep your ancient OS from the last millennium like a worn out security blanket and your false sacred cow views of it

You are missing out on a much better OS for gaming than XP is now. Vista is 100% stable. Unfortunately not all of its detractors are.
-i have zero problem with vista gaming

I can assure you that I have plenty of ability to understand Vista, as well as your not-so-thinly-veiled assertion that I'm of lesser intelligence than you and others who run Vista.

Possibly in time, Vista will be as stable and compatible for gaming as XP SP3 is now. But currently, it is not. Sure, under optimal conditions DX10 looks mighty pretty and it DOES have more features than DX9. Unfortunately, DX10 and it's associated compatibiliites with drivers and games isn't as stable or bug-free as DX9. We won't get into the "Vista the resource hog" discussion.

I will be sticking with my "stone tablet and chisel" of an OS for gaming for quite some time...especially considering MS will support it until at least 2010 if not longer. You may have forgotten that XP currently has a 90% desktop market share in the Business sector, which is where MS really makes it's money. XP isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: MichaelD
We won't get into the "Vista the resource hog" discussion.

What is the resource hog you are talking about? Vista requires more ram then XP does, 4 gb opposed to 2 gb. And now, how much does 4 gb of ram cost today? It's dirt cheap, even 8 gb is affordable for the majority of us. This is the only thing Vista asks more from your system to run as it should. A dual core is recommended, but that is the minimum for XP too, if you want to game.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: error8

What is the resource hog you are talking about?

Uh, the entire OS. For example, why is it that Windows 7 uses 50% less resources per open window than Vista does, while maintaining equal to or better functionality?

Why is it that Windows Vista can't run acceptably on low-cost net-books, but Windows 7 can?

It's foolish to pretend Vista isn't bloated. The Microsoft developer blogs repeatedly state they?re working hard to improve performance and resource management in Windows 7 compared to Vista, and the evidence is already mounting from the early releases.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
WoW has no problems at all under Vista, not sure what he is talking about honestly.

Go to the official WoW forums.....

 

[Creig]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: error8

What is the resource hog you are talking about?

Uh, the entire OS. For example, why is it that Windows 7 uses 50% less resources per open window than Vista does, while maintaining equal to or better functionality?

Why is it that Windows Vista can't run acceptably on low-cost net-books, but Windows 7 can?

It's foolish to pretend Vista isn't bloated. The Microsoft developer blogs repeatedly state they?re working hard to improve performance and resource management in Windows 7 compared to Vista, and the evidence is already mounting from the early releases.

From that slide in your first link, it almost sounds as if Windows 7 is going to require a DX10.1 compatible video card in order to get full Aero effects. But that doesn't seem right. AFAIK, the only difference between DX10.1 and DX10 is that DX10.1 does a few things more efficiently than DX10.

Window 7's Usage of the GPU

• Continues from Windows Vista...
  • Media Center UI
    Video Playback
    Desktop Windows Manager (DWM)

• Windows 7 DWM uses Direct3D10.1 API
  • Scales in performance all the way from low end integrated to high end GPUs
    Shaders are used for blurs in the Glass
    Windows 7 cuts memory consumption is cut by 50% by window
    More and richer animations of the thumbnails

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: apoppin
for gaming keys

for gaming

Including gaming. Many people report stability in certain games under XP, only to have it crash or have issues in Vista. And Vice Versa.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: error8

What is the resource hog you are talking about?

Uh, the entire OS. For example, why is it that Windows 7 uses 50% less resources per open window than Vista does, while maintaining equal to or better functionality?

Why is it that Windows Vista can't run acceptably on low-cost net-books, but Windows 7 can?

It's foolish to pretend Vista isn't bloated. The Microsoft developer blogs repeatedly state they?re working hard to improve performance and resource management in Windows 7 compared to Vista, and the evidence is already mounting from the early releases.

Yes, but why are you comparing Vista with an unreleased OS? Maybe Windows 7 will be just as slow, at the beginning, as Vista was. I find it hard to believe that an operating system that it's about to be released in 2010, will use less resources then an OS released in 2007.
Every new windows that appeared onto the market, consumed more resources then its predecessor. So go figure...

EDIT: Anyway, we totally derailed this thread.

 

[Raventon]

i am using the x2 and running ultra high settings with 8xAA in FC2 on vista ultimate 64bit DX10 mode....i haven notice any stutters in game..i am on the a 1920x1200 resolution my FPS is constantly above 35....and the driver i am using is 8.10 WITHOUT any hotfix installed..am i missing something here?

Edit: i just ran a test of 4XAA..using the benchmark tool..my FPS is constantly above 50..no stutter at all as well...

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: apoppin
for gaming keys

for gaming

Including gaming. Many people report stability in certain games under XP, only to have it crash or have issues in Vista. And Vice Versa.

thanks for your opinion

i have my own

XP is on the way out

Just because AMD completely botches a DX10 hotfix does not mean Vista is to blame

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: apoppin

XP is on the way out

Well according to Microsoft, Vista is on the way out as well. They are rushing Windows 7 to market to replace it.

They also cited performance, stability and usability as issues with Vista that are to be fixed in Windows 7.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: MichaelD

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: MichaelD

Originally posted by: Spicedaddy
Vista sucks, bla bla bla bla...

I'm sure FC2 willll work fine in your XP DX9, but guess what, it also works fine in Vista DX9.

And Vista is so much better than XP on good hardware. (performance and stability wise)


NOW GO DEFRAG YOUR XP BOX!

Ironically, in every "XX Game doesn't work right" thread I read, DX10 is always mentioned. Oh yeah...DX10 is exclusive to VISTA, not XP or any other OS.

So while you and all other Vista Athletic Supporters say "Vista is awesome...but X Game under DX10 needs work" what you're REALLY saying is "This game blows when run on Vista."

DX10=Vista=Busted Games.

We are saying you have no clue what you are missing and you are talking as one has either no experience with Vista or an inability to understand it

Keep your ancient OS from the last millennium like a worn out security blanket and your false sacred cow views of it

You are missing out on a much better OS for gaming than XP is now. Vista is 100% stable. Unfortunately not all of its detractors are.
-i have zero problem with vista gaming

I can assure you that I have plenty of ability to understand Vista, as well as your not-so-thinly-veiled assertion that I'm of lesser intelligence than you and others who run Vista.

Possibly in time, Vista will be as stable and compatible for gaming as XP SP3 is now. But currently, it is not. Sure, under optimal conditions DX10 looks mighty pretty and it DOES have more features than DX9. Unfortunately, DX10 and it's associated compatibiliites with drivers and games isn't as stable or bug-free as DX9. We won't get into the "Vista the resource hog" discussion.

I will be sticking with my "stone tablet and chisel" of an OS for gaming for quite some time...especially considering MS will support it until at least 2010 if not longer. You may have forgotten that XP currently has a 90% desktop market share in the Business sector, which is where MS really makes it's money. XP isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

it has nothing to do with intelligence -
--i'd say it is mostly to do with lack of "acceptance" and inability to accept new things as well as a predisposition to throw rocks at those who do not agree with a stuck in the mud viewpoint.

HAVE you run Vista - or are you speaking from a lack of experience?
-if you have not run it for yourself - without tweaks - you simply cannot comment with any authority on its stability vs. XP

we are not talking about Vista's issues with business and especially networking. We are discussing gaming and DX10 and now DX10.1; Vista is superior to XP - for gaming and just as stable!
- you ARE the one missing out

not that i really care .. i am not missing out on anything .. that is WHY i run CF-X3

and when Windows 7 exhibits good stability for gaming, you can be sure i will be going there very quickly for DX11 .. i feel it is about time for me to go 64-bit anway
[and since MS automatically activated my old OEM copy of Vista on my new MB - i am no one to argue with them - i will make that change then with '7']

 

[CrystalBay]

Actually apoppin, Windows 7 is shipping with DX10.1 with DX11 coming later...

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: CrystalBay
Actually apoppin, Windows 7 is shipping with DX10.1 with DX11 coming later...

i know

i am keeping up

DX11 will also be made available to Vista after 7 is upgraded to it first, i guess - unlike with DX10 and XP
[i get it; that is why vista haters are especially vehement]

i am just looking forward to 64-bit [now] and since i still have Vista32 working great [on my new MB, thanx MS ], i will make that change when i go with '7'

 

[YearZero]

Look lets be realistic - there will be some applications that are incompatible with Vista, that run perfectly well in XP.

Naturally if you run XP you will miss out on some great DX10 graphical enhancements/performance increases/gameplay improvements that only Vista can produce.

If you want to have a real solution, then the very obvious and frequently mentioned option is to run a dual boot setup.
It will stand you in good stead, as it is has done for me and a million other users.

It has to be said though that if you only run fairly recently released applications, you shouldnt have to worry about Vista incompatibilities.
The only real problem I have had was with Stalker SOC and Clear Sky where sporadic and severe frame rate drops would happen, while no such problem exists when I play it on XP.

Oh and downloading drivers for boths OS' all the time.

PS: I think I aged at least a few years in replying to this boring topic, but I just couldnt stop myself.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: apoppin
for gaming keys

for gaming

Including gaming. Many people report stability in certain games under XP, only to have it crash or have issues in Vista. And Vice Versa.

thanks for your opinion

i have my own

XP is on the way out

Just because AMD completely botches a DX10 hotfix does not mean Vista is to blame

It's more like a self deception rather than your opinion.
XP is on the way out, and so is Vista. Compare the life spans of XP and Vista. Windows 7 is on a quick path to market :::wince::: to replace Vista.
And while your thinking narrowly about this DX10 hotfix, the rest of us are thinking of global issues with both XP and Vista.

:beer:

 

[Hauk]

Silly me, here I am clicking on this thread expecting to read discussion about the new Hotfix...

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: apoppin
for gaming keys

for gaming

Including gaming. Many people report stability in certain games under XP, only to have it crash or have issues in Vista. And Vice Versa.

thanks for your opinion

i have my own

XP is on the way out

Just because AMD completely botches a DX10 hotfix does not mean Vista is to blame

It's more like a self deception rather than your opinion.
XP is on the way out, and so is Vista. Compare the life spans of XP and Vista. Windows 7 is on a quick path to market :::wince::: to replace Vista.
And while your thinking narrowly about this DX10 hotfix, the rest of us are thinking of global issues with both XP and Vista.

:beer:

Strange .. self deception is how i describe you to others
You have the narrowest thinking of anyone here

But thanks for your opinion on mine

Silly me, here I am clicking on this thread expecting to read discussion about the new Hotfix...

Well, what do you want to know?

it is pretty useless for any performance increase - unlike the old hotfix which DID increase performance but which did not render everything properly; it does not address stuttering
- i am back to Cat 8-10

.. and its issues don't have ANYTHING to do with Vista .. which is as stable a gaming platform as XP - but with DX10


Finally, does anyone SEE any difference with DX10.1 vs. DX10 in STALKER, CS?
- performance OR visual ?

 

[Zstream]

To say performance is not better is a false. You only tested FC2. In Stalker the FPS have increased dramatically with my 4850 xfire.

 

[apoppin]

i was talking very specifically about FC2 by mentioning the stuttering issues and render issues associated with it;Clear Sky did not have a broken hotfix made for it that needed redoing .. but thanks for mentioning it again for me and perhaps clarifying it for yourself and others.

. . . that is *why* i am asking about DX10.1 in CS, as a separate issue; i have not explored it and i can't find much about it that is certain. i know what Ubi says it is supposed to do


You can guess where i am going next . . .

 

[Insomniator]

Trying these now on my 4850 @19x12.

I didn't even know there was a stuttering issue with FC2, but I'm sure I'll notice it now... thanks everyone...

Also, currently running vista x64 on one machine and XP x32 SP3 on the other. Vista > XP. No question...