|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
FoolsGold
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 6:59 am Post subject: Re: NVIDIA: "We Underestimated Necessary Resources for Vista |
 |
|
Charlie Wilkes wrote:
| Quote: | On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:46:07 -0400, joey wrote:
I cannot
begin to presume what is important to you, so I can't convince you that
you should upgrade to Vista right now. But, if your hardware supports
it and you plan to have the same hardware two years from now, you might
as well start using it now because getting used to it will save you from
being behind the learning curve from the rest of the corporate world.
Vista has nothing I care about enough to accept the license terms under
which it is sold. After more than a decade of buying/using Windows, I
have switched to Linux. Microsoft would have to come up with something
really enticing to lure me back.
|
Welcome to the fold brother.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Charlie Wilkes
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 6:59 am Post subject: Re: NVIDIA: "We Underestimated Necessary Resources for Vista |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:46:07 -0400, joey wrote:
| Quote: | I cannot
begin to presume what is important to you, so I can't convince you that
you should upgrade to Vista right now. But, if your hardware supports
it and you plan to have the same hardware two years from now, you might
as well start using it now because getting used to it will save you from
being behind the learning curve from the rest of the corporate world.
|
Vista has nothing I care about enough to accept the license terms under
which it is sold. After more than a decade of buying/using Windows, I
have switched to Linux. Microsoft would have to come up with something
really enticing to lure me back.
Charlie |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joey
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 6:59 am Post subject: Re: NVIDIA: "We Underestimated Necessary Resources for Vista |
|
|
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 04:54:08 +0100, nospam <nospam@please.invalid>
wrote:
| Quote: | joey <398d9s898@9sdfsdf.com> wrote:
Is DX10 something that inherently needs Vista, or is it something
Microsoft will only develop for Vista? In any case, I don't believe
there are any game releases that require DX10 as of yet.
There are important operating system changes that facilitate DX10. I
don't know how much the audience here knows about operating system
design, but it is fair to say it is substantial.
It is more like there were substantial 3d graphics system changes to
facilitate the operating system.
3d rendering is integrated in the operating system so you can have bollocks
3d eye candy on your desktop, you can't even play freecell in vista without
hardware 3d graphics card support.
A different DX10 offering the same performance improvements in games could
have been created for XP but a DX10 which integrates with vista won't fit
in XP.
for free. Not a smart move for any company -- best to make it a
feature of the next version of the OS which includes some other things
users might be willing to pay for
Again it is more like the next version of the OS includes other things
which users are not willing to pay for but if they want DX10 they will be
forced to pay for them anyway. And not just not willing to pay for them but
not wanting them at all. At the moment I wouldn't install vista if they
were giving it away.
|
At the moment, sure... but this too shall pass.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Access
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 2:16 pm Post subject: Re: NVIDIA: "We Underestimated Necessary Resources for Vista |
|
|
"FoolsGold" <fg@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:132irdrbqbino53@corp.supernews.com...
| Quote: | joey wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:51:48 -0400, No One
aintnoway@blahblahblah.com> wrote:
joey wrote:
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 11:35:41 +0100, Conor <conor.turton@gmail.com
wrote:
In article <qgbg23119hmasf3gehe7uh4mapn0h6g43l@4ax.com>, joey says...
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:39:55 GMT, "babaloo" <fac187@hotmail.com
wrote:
It is not the drivers that suck. It is Vista that sucks.
Spoken by a true technology expert (yawn).
It's not Vista that interacts with the video card. The code between
the graphics system of the of an operating system and the driver is
all the same. The driver lies between the OS and the video card, and
the driver is where people are having problems. Drivers are written
by video card vendors, not Microsoft.
Vista is the worst product every issued by Microsoft, an
unbelievable fiasco.
People said the same thing about XP at first.
Ruling out graphics card drivers because we're not talking 3D
gaming....
I've just installed XP and apps etc on a XP1500 system with 512MB RAM.
It boots, opens apps and runs faster than my X2 4800, 2GB system with
Vista on.
I was fkin disgusted.
I was specifically addressing the post by bubaloo or whatever, but to
address the problem you're describing, that same phenomenon has
occurred with every MS OS release since the early days of DOS.
Win 95 didnt have the responsiveness that Win 3.1 had. Win 98 didn't
load apps as fast as 95, and so on and so forth through XP.
NT 3.5 and 4 loaded things faster than Win 95 or 98, especially if you
threw more RAM at it. XP is slower than 2000. Vista slower still.
And DOS runs faster than any of them on single threaded apps, maybe we
all should downgrade.
DOS does not have the functionality that we require though, hence we use
newer operating systems. Convincing people to upgrade from XP to Vista is
tricky if the experience is slower without a SUFFICIENT gain in
functionality.
|
You will need it to play DirectX-10 games. Could be some years till they
arrive though.
Matthias |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Conor
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 10:37 pm Post subject: Re: NVIDIA: "We Underestimated Necessary Resources for Vista |
|
|
In article <pan.2007.04.20.21.03.16@users.easynews.com>, Charlie Wilkes
says...
| Quote: | On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 08:41:38 -0400, joey wrote:
I was specifically addressing the post by bubaloo or whatever, but to
address the problem you're describing, that same phenomenon has occurred
with every MS OS release since the early days of DOS.
Win 95 didnt have the responsiveness that Win 3.1 had. Win 98 didn't
load apps as fast as 95, and so on and so forth through XP.
The difference is that each of those operating systems brought new
capabilities that users really wanted... win95 brought 32 bit support and
a better GUI; 98 brought support for USB and much larger hdds; 2k/XP
brought support for more RAM and even bigger hdds. What does Vista bring
that anyone really cares about?
|
Security.
--
Conor
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright
until you hear them speak......... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fix your Windows Problems - FAST.
FREE Safe Scan Registry Check. Locate & Fix Errors in Minutes!
|
|
RF
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 11:32 pm Post subject: Re: NVIDIA: "We Underestimated Necessary Resources for Vista |
|
|
"Conor" <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.20945c26241eef6098a5ac@news.karoo.co.uk...
| Quote: | In article <pan.2007.04.20.21.03.16@users.easynews.com>, Charlie Wilkes
says...
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 08:41:38 -0400, joey wrote:
What does Vista bring
that anyone really cares about?
Security.
--
Conor
|
According to MS's marketing guys, at least. In practice? I don't know.
RF. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Conor
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 12:02 am Post subject: Re: NVIDIA: "We Underestimated Necessary Resources for Vista |
|
|
In article <462a8271$0$14247$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be>, Access says...
| Quote: | I recently read something that the security in Vista was decreasing the
performance of games. Solution : run the game with administrator rights.
Great security ... :-)
And what you read was wrong. It doesn't decrease the performance of |
games.
--
Conor
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright
until you hear them speak......... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stephan Rose
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 12:02 am Post subject: Re: NVIDIA: "We Underestimated Necessary Resources for Vista |
|
|
Anssi Saari wrote:
| Quote: | joey <398d9s898@9sdfsdf.com> writes:
This kind of practice occurs in the Linux world and is one reason
gaming is dead on Linux - there are a gazillion different versions /
distros of the OS out there, and because of all the kernel
bastardizations, unless your app is written in Java which is
dog-slow (and not suitable for high performance game development),
you pretty much have to recompile your application for every
stinking bastardization of the OS out there.
This seems very odd to me. I'm not sure if you meant games when you
wrote "app". However, I run commercial software on Linux on a daily
basis. I even maintain a couple of Linux boxes that run commercial
software, for electronics design. Now sure, vendors usually have a
(short) list of Linuxes they support, but that in no way means that
the software wouldn't work on other distributions. I also don't get
what these "kernel bastardizations" have to do with application
software? I really thought applications talk to an API usually.
|
That is correct. Most applications do not give a crap about the Kernel nor
should they. The only apps that care about the kernel are apps such as
VMWare which need kernel level stuff for proper virtualization support.
Very few other apps though fall into this category.
Games for one thing definitely do NOT fall into this category.
It is a major misconception that an application "has" to be compiled to run
under linux. No. It does not. It may be common practice to do so on many
distributions with open souce applications, but that does not mean it has
to be done.
A game only needs to link against OpenGL and OpenAL for graphics and sound.
That will work with any kernel as long as OpenGL and OpenAL is present on
the target system. Not any different than requiring DirectX on a windows
system.
As an added plus, a game using the above libraries will also work under
windows perfectly fine!
If a game also needs networking support then there are also quite a few
cross platform libraries available that can be used with commercial
applications without any issues and allow the game to run under both
operating systems with no additional work for the developer.
I personally write cross platform OpenGL and GUI code that runs on both
Windows and Linux so I personally have experience under the subject. The
only person doing any compiling is me, the developer. Compile once for each
target platform...done! Yes, it is that simple.
Currently the only distribution I officially support is Ubuntu since that is
the one I personally use. I will add testing for some of the other major
distributions in the near future and then that will be it. If someone then
comes across with some bastardized version that only consists of 0.01% of
my user base and things dont work...tough luck. Not my problem as I do need
to draw a line somewhere.
And while we are on the subject of games...Game developers actually are not
embracing DX10 like the users are. Quite the contrary actually. The whole
DX10 and Vista mess actually poses quite a problem for anyone doing DirectX
Development.
Developers Currently have the choice of the following:
- Use DX9 which is supported across the board but no DX10 level features.
Annoys the people with DX10 hardware and Vista who cant get the eye candy
they want. But at least everyone can play the game.
- Use DX10 which is only supported on high-end cards and Vista. Annoys the
people with DX9 hardware or running XP who now cannot run the game at all!
Even if a person who runs XP has DX10 hardware they still cant run the game
because DX10 is vista only. On top of that, DX10 API is so different
fundamentally no existing engine code will work with it and require a
complete rewrite at least in the DirectX portion of things.
- Use OpenGL which can do both DX9 and DX10 level features. It runs on every
operating system. It supports every video card. It is compatible with any
existing OpenGL code in engines supporting OpengGL. Every user can run the
game and eye candy is determined by the users system capabilities. Everyone
pretty much wins.
I just had a talk the other day with a friend of mine who works for one of
the major game studios and I asked him about DX10. His answer? OpenGL.
I personally would not be surprised if we see some more titles released in
the future using OpenGL instead of DirectX.
--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6
君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは
君のこと忘れたときがないから |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stephan Rose
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 12:02 am Post subject: Re: NVIDIA: "We Underestimated Necessary Resources for Vista |
|
|
joey wrote:
| Quote: | On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 19:23:12 +0300, Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> wrote:
joey <398d9s898@9sdfsdf.com> writes:
This kind of practice occurs in the Linux world and is one reason
gaming is dead on Linux - there are a gazillion different versions /
distros of the OS out there, and because of all the kernel
bastardizations, unless your app is written in Java which is
dog-slow (and not suitable for high performance game development),
you pretty much have to recompile your application for every
stinking bastardization of the OS out there.
This seems very odd to me. I'm not sure if you meant games when you
wrote "app". However, I run commercial software on Linux on a daily
basis. I even maintain a couple of Linux boxes that run commercial
software, for electronics design. Now sure, vendors usually have a
(short) list of Linuxes they support, but that in no way means that
the software wouldn't work on other distributions. I also don't get
what these "kernel bastardizations" have to do with application
software? I really thought applications talk to an API usually.
Most of them do, but the thing to understand is that under Linux, key
parts of the operating system such as the threading model can work
entirely different. Some versions of Linux support true threads, some
spawn an entirely new process for each thread. So regardless of
whether you're writing to an API or not, fundamental changes to the
kernel can affect the timing and thread synchronization of anything
but the most simple applications. I'm not saying this is true of
every application out there, but I've seen Linux / UNIX horror stores
in my multi-decade programming career that I don't even care to go
into at the moment.
|
Wanna know my solution to that one?
I have my list of distributions I officially support. All others are at the
users own risks. If someone has some oddball distribution that does things
differently...their problem if it is not on my list of supported
distributions. End of story. Have to draw a line somewhere!
--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6
君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは
君のこと忘れたときがないから |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joey
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 12:02 am Post subject: Re: NVIDIA: "We Underestimated Necessary Resources for Vista |
|
|
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 19:23:12 +0300, Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> wrote:
| Quote: | joey <398d9s898@9sdfsdf.com> writes:
This kind of practice occurs in the Linux world and is one reason
gaming is dead on Linux - there are a gazillion different versions /
distros of the OS out there, and because of all the kernel
bastardizations, unless your app is written in Java which is
dog-slow (and not suitable for high performance game development),
you pretty much have to recompile your application for every
stinking bastardization of the OS out there.
This seems very odd to me. I'm not sure if you meant games when you
wrote "app". However, I run commercial software on Linux on a daily
basis. I even maintain a couple of Linux boxes that run commercial
software, for electronics design. Now sure, vendors usually have a
(short) list of Linuxes they support, but that in no way means that
the software wouldn't work on other distributions. I also don't get
what these "kernel bastardizations" have to do with application
software? I really thought applications talk to an API usually.
|
Most of them do, but the thing to understand is that under Linux, key
parts of the operating system such as the threading model can work
entirely different. Some versions of Linux support true threads, some
spawn an entirely new process for each thread. So regardless of
whether you're writing to an API or not, fundamental changes to the
kernel can affect the timing and thread synchronization of anything
but the most simple applications. I'm not saying this is true of
every application out there, but I've seen Linux / UNIX horror stores
in my multi-decade programming career that I don't even care to go
into at the moment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fix your Windows Problems - FAST.
FREE Safe Scan Registry Check. Locate & Fix Errors in Minutes!
|
|
joey
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 12:02 am Post subject: Re: NVIDIA: "We Underestimated Necessary Resources for Vista |
|
|
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 13:32:10 -0500, "RF" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Conor" <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.20945c26241eef6098a5ac@news.karoo.co.uk...
In article <pan.2007.04.20.21.03.16@users.easynews.com>, Charlie Wilkes
says...
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 08:41:38 -0400, joey wrote:
What does Vista bring
that anyone really cares about?
Security.
--
Conor
According to MS's marketing guys, at least. In practice? I don't know.
RF.
|
No, Vista is definately more secure. The real controversy is that
some users do not like the security, or are not used to it yet, or
don't want to be "saved from themself". What it's really saving them
from is dangerous or carelessly written software, and a lot of people
have carelessly written software that they've grown fond of over time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joey
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 12:02 am Post subject: Re: NVIDIA: "We Underestimated Necessary Resources for Vista |
|
|
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 13:36:48 -0400, "Dr. Pepper"
<nobody@no97870where.edu> wrote:
| Quote: | "AirRaid" <AirRaid1500@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176828572.010270.44050@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Nvidia Names Stability as Top Priority for Windows Vista Drivers
[ 04/12/2007 | 10:42 PM ]
An official from Nvidia, a leading designer of system chipsets and
graphics processors, admitted that the company had underestimated
resources it needed to develop proper drivers for Windows Vista, but
said the issues would be shortly resolved. Besides, the company has
outlined its priorities when developing drivers for the new operating
system (OS).
*snip*
I'll never buy an Nvidia card again. I bought a GeForce 6800 GT AGP card 2
years ago. For the first year the driver support was good, but for the last
year is has absolutely stunk. Nvidia has abandoned support of the GeForce 6
series (at least on Windows XP) for the last 6 months while they devote all
their resources to the 8 series cards and Vista. My system (3.4 GHz Socket
478 Prescott Pentium 4, Abit IS7 Motherboard, the 6800 GT, and 2 Gigs of
Corsair XMS PC3200 DDR) would still be plenty capable of running current
games like WoW, Lord of the Rings Online, FEAR, Battlefield 2142, etc.,
except that games (particularly WoW and LotRO) keep crashing every 20
minutes due to the crap 6-month old drivers.
|
Such is the plight of the PC gamer my friend. If you want the flat
upgrade curve you have to stick with consoles. The PC is an evolving
platform that requires occasional upgrades, and quite frankly your
video card is outdated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joey
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 12:02 am Post subject: Re: NVIDIA: "We Underestimated Necessary Resources for Vista |
|
|
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 23:30:33 +0200, "Access" <anti@spam.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
"joey" <ddadadada@deededededed.com> wrote in message
news:jcuk23lbe58sarivn2ktrd4rvmohpepc1s@4ax.com...
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 13:32:10 -0500, "RF" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Conor" <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.20945c26241eef6098a5ac@news.karoo.co.uk...
In article <pan.2007.04.20.21.03.16@users.easynews.com>, Charlie Wilkes
says...
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 08:41:38 -0400, joey wrote:
What does Vista bring
that anyone really cares about?
Security.
--
Conor
According to MS's marketing guys, at least. In practice? I don't
know.
RF.
No, Vista is definately more secure. The real controversy is that
some users do not like the security, or are not used to it yet, or
don't want to be "saved from themself". What it's really saving them
from is dangerous or carelessly written software, and a lot of people
have carelessly written software that they've grown fond of over time.
I recently read something that the security in Vista was decreasing the
performance of games. Solution : run the game with administrator rights.
Great security ... :-)
|
Running the game with admin rights doesn't mean you have to log on as
an admin, it means running only that process as an admin. As long as
you do that and you trust Electronic Arts or whoever the game is from,
there's no loss of securty with that approach. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Access
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 12:02 am Post subject: Re: NVIDIA: "We Underestimated Necessary Resources for Vista |
|
|
"joey" <ddadadada@deededededed.com> wrote in message
news:jcuk23lbe58sarivn2ktrd4rvmohpepc1s@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 13:32:10 -0500, "RF" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Conor" <conor.turton@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.20945c26241eef6098a5ac@news.karoo.co.uk...
In article <pan.2007.04.20.21.03.16@users.easynews.com>, Charlie Wilkes
says...
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 08:41:38 -0400, joey wrote:
What does Vista bring
that anyone really cares about?
Security.
--
Conor
According to MS's marketing guys, at least. In practice? I don't
know.
RF.
No, Vista is definately more secure. The real controversy is that
some users do not like the security, or are not used to it yet, or
don't want to be "saved from themself". What it's really saving them
from is dangerous or carelessly written software, and a lot of people
have carelessly written software that they've grown fond of over time.
|
I recently read something that the security in Vista was decreasing the
performance of games. Solution : run the game with administrator rights.
Great security ... :-) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Conor
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 12:02 am Post subject: Re: NVIDIA: "We Underestimated Necessary Resources for Vista |
|
|
In article <462a8271$0$14247$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be>, Access says...
| Quote: | I recently read something that the security in Vista was decreasing the
performance of games. Solution : run the game with administrator rights.
Great security ... :-)
Blame the game makers for writing software that needs Admin rights. |
--
Conor
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright
until you hear them speak......... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Watched Topics
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Profile
Log in
Memberlist
Usergroups