DX10 - why not on XP?

Fire Wizard · 27 Mar 2008 at 10:42

Dutch Guy said:
Vista needs more hardware to run the same or slightly better.

Hello Dutch Guy, which really should have been suspected and not really come of any surprise. It would be absolutely silly for the newest Operating System to require the exact same hardware requirements to that off an older Operating System. That would not be progression in my opinion.

Dutch Guy · 27 Mar 2008 at 11:38

Fire Wizard said:
Hello Dutch Guy, which really should have been suspected and not really come of any surprise. It would be absolutely silly for the newest Operating System to require the exact same hardware requirements to that off an older Operating System. That would not be progression in my opinion.

I disagree, progression is making it run better with the same hardware, in other words making better use of the hardware by optimising the software, but maybe that is what they will do with Windows 7.

Just look at the image quality of games for the Xbox360/PS3 compared to a top range PC and on what outdated hadware it runs.

Dolph said:
Except it isn't at all, it's simply a return to the old product cycles they used to do. The delay between XP and Vista was abnormal, prior to that there was a new os release every 2-3 years. Windows 7 is basically like 98 SE or ME, it's built on the vista codebase but will have a few new features and a redesigned front end. It's not at all a sign that vista failed, but natural progression.

You are probably right, it just feels like Vista should perform better but they stopped optimising it to stop the delay getting even longer.

Darkwave · 27 Mar 2008 at 11:57

Dutch Guy said:
Just look at the image quality of games for the Xbox360/PS3 compared to a top range PC and on what outdated hadware it runs.

This makes baby Jesus cry. Baby Jesus likes AA/AF and draw distance in his games.

mr.sly · 27 Mar 2008 at 11:58

Dutch Guy said:
I disagree, progression is making it run better with the same hardware, in other words making better use of the hardware by optimising the software, but maybe that is what they will do with Windows 7.

Just look at the image quality of games for the Xbox360/PS3 compared to a top range PC and on what outdated hadware it runs.

Progression is making new features available, with in turn requires more power. You won't get XP running on a 3.1 machine.

Dutch Guy said:
You are probably right, it just feels like Vista should perform better but they stopped optimising it to stop the delay getting even longer.

Got anything to back that up with?

Dolph · 27 Mar 2008 at 12:16

Dutch Guy said:
You are probably right, it just feels like Vista should perform better but they stopped optimising it to stop the delay getting even longer.

Compare vista now to XP running on hardware from 2002, that's a fair comparison of products within their life-cycles. The results are very telling...

Most of the issues with vista are not performance of the OS, but of drivers, or issues where MS has corrected previously incorrect ways of performing operations (like the copy box in XP disappearing long before the copy had actually completed) leading to people claiming the OS isn't as fast.

Dutch Guy · 27 Mar 2008 at 12:25

mr.sly said:
Progression is making new features available, with in turn requires more power. You won't get XP running on a 3.1 machine.

Got anything to back that up with?

1) can you name a feature of Vista that requires so much more CPU power and memory?

2)No, that's why I said 'it just feels like Vista should perform better'

But looking at the replies it looks like I have a too pessimistic view of Vista

mr.sly · 27 Mar 2008 at 12:49

Dutch Guy said:
1) can you name a feature of Vista that requires so much more CPU power and memory?

2)No, that's why I said 'it just feels like Vista should perform better'

But looking at the replies it looks like I have a too pessimistic view of Vista

No you said...

but they stopped optimising it to stop the delay getting even longer.

And there isn't a new feature that needs that much more CPU or memory, its a combination of all the new features. And the fact that its now 64bit.

misterjingo · 27 Mar 2008 at 13:22

Vista as it now stands is very much different to what we were first told it would be. AFAIK, a lot of the touted additions were dropped due to dealine constraints including a much better looking UI and new file system.

Original preview of what vista was going to be:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9ifQvQCO7Y&feature=related

Watch form about 1 minute in.

hamesy · 27 Mar 2008 at 13:37

I have to laugh at the argument that XP runs faster than Vista. Of course it runs faster, it was designed to run on hardware that's seven years old, while Vista is designed to run on today's hardware. In seven years time, people will be crying Vista run faster than xyz without realising it was designed for old technology.

And I would like like to add that yes I'm still using XP, but I have tried Vista on several occasions and love it. The only reason I haven't upgraded yet is because I can't afford to atm.

Dolph · 27 Mar 2008 at 13:40

misterjingo said:
Vista as it now stands is very much different to what we were first told it would be. AFAIK, a lot of the touted additions were dropped due to dealine constraints including a much better looking UI and new file system.

Original preview of what vista was going to be:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9ifQvQCO7Y&feature=related

Watch form about 1 minute in.

Most of the features that were dropped from Longhorn originally were dropped primarily because they showed no real world benefit (the database driven file system being the most obvious) that would justify the issues in getting it to work and rolling out another new standard.

helmutcheese · 27 Mar 2008 at 13:44

If you want your PC fast, run Windows 98SE on your new hardware.

Vista is not what MS intended, it was 2 years late and had many functions removed due to no time to finish them.

On the day Vista hit RTM, they told us the next Windows would be 2009 (did not say if Jan or Dec lol).

Thats now changed and the next Windows is not till 2010-11 (unless late lol), I feel Vista will be as good as XP was after SP2, XP was not that hot till XP-SP2 (MS stated aswell as many review sites that SP2 was more a new OS refresh like 98SE than a Service Pack like SP1).

What Vista was to be like (at 1m 03secs ). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9ifQvQCO7Y

For anyone who want to play DX10 games in XP, Tuff Luck.

I did not even open my free copy of Vista for 1 year due to it being unusable for me with lack of drivers for my hardware and Nvidia messing about.

I year later things had imporved so I used it and now SP1 is here there is no real reason not to use it unless you simply do not like it or have very old hardware.

Very recently Vista is showing its as fast as XP in Games etc, thats obv due to being on newer hardware, if you run a older less hungry OS on same hardware its obv going to be faster.

I think some peeps want to stand still and not advance, if that was the case we would all be still on DOS because some do not like Eye Candy.

Frapple · 27 Mar 2008 at 13:52

Some nice animations I would have like there, the preview of pictures especially.

helmutcheese · 27 Mar 2008 at 14:12

Well thats what the early builds of Longhorn we tested were like, major buggy though and massive memory leaks esp the Sidebar.

There was a Beta APP from MS when Vista launched (could use on XP also) that was to do with Photos and looked kind like the one in Longhorn (cant remember name and its gone now AFAIK).

The Windows Photo Gallery in Vista does a basic version of it, but does not move about screen like a deak of cards been delt.

misterjingo · 27 Mar 2008 at 15:03

Dolph said:
Most of the features that were dropped from Longhorn originally were dropped primarily because they showed no real world benefit (the database driven file system being the most obvious) that would justify the issues in getting it to work and rolling out another new standard.

The filesystem (WinFS) is supposedly going to be rolled out in the future. First for the new server 2008 - and possibly the next upgrade of vista?

m4cc45 · 27 Mar 2008 at 15:10

helmutcheese said:
Well thats what the early builds of Longhorn we tested were like, major buggy though and massive memory leaks esp the Sidebar.

There was a Beta APP from MS when Vista launched (could use on XP also) that was to do with Photos and looked kind like the one in Longhorn (cant remember name and its gone now AFAIK).

The Windows Photo Gallery in Vista does a basic version of it, but does not move about screen like a deak of cards been delt.

Are you thinking of Dream Scene? There was a Windows Vista Ultimate addon for this. It basically turns your background into a Video and you could just have any video looping on it.

Believe this is now available for all variants of Vista.

M.

Dolph · 27 Mar 2008 at 15:40

misterjingo said:
The filesystem (WinFS) is supposedly going to be rolled out in the future. First for the new server 2008 - and possibly the next upgrade of vista?

AFAIK all they've said is that they haven't abandoned the project completely (although it was supposedly canned in 2006), not heard anything about it reappearing in any OS yet though.

misterjingo · 27 Mar 2008 at 16:02

Dolph said:
AFAIK all they've said is that they haven't abandoned the project completely (although it was supposedly canned in 2006), not heard anything about it reappearing in any OS yet though.

Ah. I hope they do eventually put it to use, in concept it sounds interesting.

helmutcheese · 27 Mar 2008 at 16:11

WinFS is not a File System in its own right, it runs ontop on NTFS.

helmutcheese · 27 Mar 2008 at 16:11

m4cc45 said:
Are you thinking of Dream Scene? There was a Windows Vista Ultimate addon for this. It basically turns your background into a Video and you could just have any video looping on it.

Believe this is now available for all variants of Vista.

M.

Na, Thats a Movie (.wmv) and its in the Final Version of Vista if you grab from WU Extras.