I think many here will upgrade to Vista when they upgrade their machines, and thus, would buy an OEM copy along with the new Motherboard, CPU, RAM etc
Wheres the fun in buying a pre-built PC anyway?
Alan Wake = Vista Only
- Thread starter BKUK
- Start date
I think many here will upgrade to Vista when they upgrade their machines, and thus, would buy an OEM copy along with the new Motherboard, CPU, RAM etc
Wheres the fun in buying a pre-built PC anyway?
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 11,346
For some reason you have not been banned, so I shall reply.
I really dont know how to start a reply with a statement like that
, what on earth makes you think jumping to conclusions is a good thing, and will make you continue to do so ? Are you a person who always thinks 'guilty until proven innocent' ? Are you religious by any chance ? stoofa said:
Im not looking at having ago at anyone in the slightest thanks, you 'jumped on my case' I did not invite you to do so.
Iv had many a conversation in my many years with people who dictate technical law and perform judge and jury based on near no true and real evidence, it quite simply astounds me, utterly baffling.
Now I wish not to get into some sort of strange and warped 'slagging match' of what was/is/could ever be said, if you wish to have a conversation of human psychology id be happy to talk to you, every odd and strange point-of-view is always interesting, email is in trust if you wish to carry this conversation on outside of the forums.
I have a friend with a retail copy of XP Home.
First installed on a Sct 423 Intel p4 1.8 ghz setup, that died and was replaced by a new Sct 478 Mobo, 2.6ghz p4 CPU RAM etc and reactivated via phone with Microsoft.
The second motherboard failed about 18 months later and we replaced it with a Sct 775 P4 3.0ghz again, a different socket design, chipset - the lot.
Microsoft again,happily re-activated his license despite a complete change of chipset etc.
Surprise surprise, Motherboard #3 died and we have replaced it with an AMD 64 X2 Setup which obviously is totally different in every respect to his previous Intel based PC's - chipset, RAM, GFX Card, CPU the lot.
On activation (via the web) we were told he'd used all of his activation's and to call a number....
After a brief chat with Microsoft (and a few choice words about motherboards seeming to be pre-programmed to die after 18 months!) this copy was re-activated yet again with no problem.
The chap at Microsoft was more than aware of the system history, it sounded like he had it in front of him as he commented that he hoped we had better luck with this one compared to the previous ones!
Whilst I don't dispute for one moment that you know what your on about, my experiences (as I am the one who phoned Microsoft for my friend and built his machines over the years) tells me that Microsofts strictness with regard to licensing is far from strict at best, some would probably say lax.
The chap from Microsoft fully appreciated that , in my friends case, each time he needed to replace a faulty Motherboard technology had moved on and his previous kit was no longer available to buy (new) and therefore he had no option but to upgrade through no fault of his own.
As I'm sure you can imagine, my mate is far from unhappy with this situation, he has in the eyes of Microsoft, a legitimate operating system that is now working fine on his new PC and is a certain future customer for Vista I'd imagine as he's well pleased with Microsofts customer service.
Last edited:
Last time your checked? you better do a lot more checking.
Plus no one is forcing you to buy the most expensive version.
Get the upgrade if your pocket cant cope.
Only cost you 2 games worth.
XPpro cost me £250 when i bought it so don't have ago at vista prices.
OcUK not selling Retail version and only OEM is irrelevant in your argument because if most people were like you then OcUK would not be selling the OEM version ether
because you have not bought one of them... so don't make excuses about cost & having no options. the fact is you don't want to change from XP to vista then so be it but don't try to make up excuses that contradict them selfs when your argument is based on a aspect that was the same for the previous OS at launch so to try to tell me that the top version of windows XPPro retail cost £100-£150 when it came out.
Last edited:
Vistas easy wireless setup and management are the best things about the OS tbh. I used XP SP2 on my old machine which I gave to my dad and the wireless constantly dropped on it and the throughput was **** poor. Also having to manually tweak things like net bios, address ranges and DNS info was a joke at the best of times, especially when id get phone calls from my parents asking me why the wireless had died on them for no reason and getting me round to fix it -.-.
Ive not noticed any lack in performance on games on vista 32 bit and 64 bit editions (i own both) compared to XPSP2 so tbh I dont know what most of you are whining about. One guy earlier in this thread put "i dont like the way it looks" which is the single most dumb comment ive read in a very long time. Just like XP you can change the stuff you dont like into "retro" mode and free up a lot of the ram people whine about losing to the OS.
You can disable aero (which is useful imho), disable vista theme to make the OS look like 2000, use readyboost with a flash drive to increase general performance, use DX10 apps properly out of the box without daft tweaks and hacks and enjoy probably the most stable OS to date. When you get a driver or program acting up on vista it tells you exactly what went wrong and searches online for a solution whereas XP just dies, reboots and leaves you guessing.
Most people in another years time will be using vista in one of its forms anyway so the whining will soon die down. Until then enjoy some of the performance updates which SP1 brings for vista which fixes some of the daft problems like file transfer speeds and opening/closing stuff.
Ive not noticed any lack in performance on games on vista 32 bit and 64 bit editions (i own both) compared to XPSP2 so tbh I dont know what most of you are whining about. One guy earlier in this thread put "i dont like the way it looks" which is the single most dumb comment ive read in a very long time. Just like XP you can change the stuff you dont like into "retro" mode and free up a lot of the ram people whine about losing to the OS.
You can disable aero (which is useful imho), disable vista theme to make the OS look like 2000, use readyboost with a flash drive to increase general performance, use DX10 apps properly out of the box without daft tweaks and hacks and enjoy probably the most stable OS to date. When you get a driver or program acting up on vista it tells you exactly what went wrong and searches online for a solution whereas XP just dies, reboots and leaves you guessing.
Most people in another years time will be using vista in one of its forms anyway so the whining will soon die down. Until then enjoy some of the performance updates which SP1 brings for vista which fixes some of the daft problems like file transfer speeds and opening/closing stuff.
Interesting stuff.
I have not yet made the switch to Vista, but have used it quite a bit on friends PC's & Laptops.
I increased the speed of Vista on a low ish spec Laptop by turning off all the crap as you mention, it went from seeming slower than XP to considerably quicker - Hardly scientific I grant you!
Also, I noticed it took about 20 minutes the other night to transfer 240MB from my mobile phone to a Vista Home Laptop.
Is this an example of the daft file transfer problem you mentioned? - I tried the same transfer on my own PC when I got back home & it took seconds rather than minutes.
Last edited:
Okay what is with the personal attacks ? I am saying the reason why i dont get vista is because of it's price and that i think it should be lowered a bit which might tempt people in to making the switch and because of that i am a vista hater ? where is the incentive ? it runs games slower has more issues than xp is more expensive than xp is bloated full of hold your hand nanny stuff that i don't want or need i actually want to install all my own drivers.
Seriously if you get offended because you run vista and need to vent your anger at any criticism it recieves then please direct it elsewhere.
Seriously if you get offended because you run vista and need to vent your anger at any criticism it recieves then please direct it elsewhere.
Last edited:
It's not a worthwhile upgrade over xp what so ever yet i think is my main point, that and to start releasing vista only games to try and make people pay to go vista is a bad thing.I mean come off it anyone really in to their gaming is on xp still what good is vista when your graphics card and games run slower on it than xp.
Last edited:
I suggest we wait until vista is actually better and faster with the compatibilty issues at least ironed out some more before they start forcing peoples hands to jump ship.This game is quite unimportant though it will only be a big deal when popular multiplayer games go vista only.
My favourite most played game amongst others, until i see that red graph nearer the green graph i have no reason or incentive to go vista.
The only thing that would make me swap over would be a more resonable price on vista premium retail 64bit edition as i will be taking a gaming performance hit.
Last edited:
how is the 64 bit vista working now?
Been thinking of changing but still hear there's a lot of bugs with all the 64 bit os's
Why on earth a game cannot have DX 7,8,9 or 10 capability in the options (like many many others do so) alludes me.
As I say, its the developer thats ultimately shooting himself in the foot by cutting off his customer base.
Am I the only person here who had not even come across Alan Wake prior to this thread?
probably because it's cheaper and quicker, and they can have a staff spend a lot of time optimising it for just one.
All i keep hearing from vista owners is how great it is and it's just hype that it's full of issues.
On the other hand i keep reading how overclocking is harder with 4 gigs + of ram with issues and how gaming is slower and tons of other issues from other people which group is correct i have no idea probably a mixture.
Only thing that gets my goat is when you criticise vista, hoards of vista fanboys come out and attack you and pick holes in your arguments.
Makes me laugh as i dont hate vista and will naturally switch when it benefits me.
On the other hand i keep reading how overclocking is harder with 4 gigs + of ram with issues and how gaming is slower and tons of other issues from other people which group is correct i have no idea probably a mixture.
Only thing that gets my goat is when you criticise vista, hoards of vista fanboys come out and attack you and pick holes in your arguments.
Makes me laugh as i dont hate vista and will naturally switch when it benefits me.
Last edited:
I have Vista/XP dual boot.
The only game that I find slower on Vista is Crysis... Vista is actually a very good o/s, it beats XP in many areas but there are some areas where XP is still ahead. If you ask me Vista is more a sideways step rather then a step forward. I like it but wouldn't wipe my XP just yet
The only game that I find slower on Vista is Crysis... Vista is actually a very good o/s, it beats XP in many areas but there are some areas where XP is still ahead. If you ask me Vista is more a sideways step rather then a step forward. I like it but wouldn't wipe my XP just yet
I'm not trying to defend Vista (although inadvertently I am) I'm just saying that some peoples arguments aren't valid and are based on rumours or articles on the internet and not from using the product. It's the same on any subject really, people have there views and can't really be disuaded.
Overclocking is not harder at all as all of it setup in the BIOS. Vista just wants to be stable though and when you overclock you're taking away the stability of the system as the components were built to run at a certain speed and you're pushing them past it.
I have no problems using either O/S, however given the choice on the hardware that I have I would pick Vista everytime.
M.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 3,871
Hello no_1_dave, if you are running Crysis in DirectX 10, that could well be the reason why you are experiencing lower frame rates in Windows Vista as opposed to Windows XP. Try running Crysis in DirectX 9 when running Windows Vista.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 2,427
The fact of the matter is that Vista has come a long way since this time last year when the bashing was most valid. Its just that a lot of people have not realised that yet.
As said before I don't need any of the extra guff Vista brings all I want is to play games. If thats all you need it for it's expensive, yes it will make games look nice but how many times do you see people with the most powerful rigs turning of all the extras just to get higher FPS anyway.
You can tell me how stable it is till the cows come home but so is XP for me, if it was a big boost for games then I would get it in a flash (well after my next pc upgrade) but it's more of an enhancement that anything new. Graphics don't make a game gameplay does.
You can tell me how stable it is till the cows come home but so is XP for me, if it was a big boost for games then I would get it in a flash (well after my next pc upgrade) but it's more of an enhancement that anything new. Graphics don't make a game gameplay does.
I suggest we wait until vista is actually better and faster with the compatibilty issues at least ironed out some more before they start forcing peoples hands to jump ship.This game is quite unimportant though it will only be a big deal when popular multiplayer games go vista only.
My favourite most played game amongst others, until i see that red graph nearer the green graph i have no reason or incentive to go vista.
The only thing that would make me swap over would be a more resonable price on vista premium retail 64bit edition as i will be taking a gaming performance hit.
A bit OT but in what world is a 7600GT faster than an 8800GTS?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 3,871
Hello C64, if you are going to post graphs, please state the source as well. As you can see, it's pretty out of date and some of those results don't seem quite right to me anyway.
Have a read through this article.
Last edited: