Vista gaming will be 10 to 15% slower than XP

[Fionavar]

I suspect that Vista will eventually be stable and be a worthy successor of XP - I just do not see it until at least a SP 1 - more likely SP 2. MS keeps adding code/hardware reqs that push the industry. The problem is that it is not necessarily needed. But a consumer paradigm does not often lead to efficiency ... :?

[alanschu]

The problem is that if you like new software (that includes games), eventually it's a requirement to get WinBlows (in America, I can't speak for other areas). Or at least, it feels like it. I know there are other options, but...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

That's not true. I am a gamer and I have always been slow on my transitions to new operating systems. I was still using Windows 98 SE going into 2003, and I had no problems about OS support for games.

[Bokishi]

Yeah I was using '98 until 2004.

[alanschu]

Actually now that I think about it, so was I. Because I moved into my apartment in September 2003, and was using it for most of my first year living there.

[Bokishi]

The problem was that XP would rape the system I had back then. And it wouldn't even support my videocard.

[LadyCrimson]

@ alan - You'll notice I used the word "eventually"....I also used 98 for sometime after XP's release, but eventually was "forced" to change when drivers became unsupported/obsolete for both hardware and software I wanted to use and all of that. While this is true of any tech as it advances, I'd switch away from MS "brand" in a heartbeat if another O/S could work for my needs/habits. But so far, none really do...at least not enough to be able to forgo Windows entirely. Thus...I "must" use and eventually keep upgrading Windows for lack of options.

Edited October 10, 2006 by LadyCrimson

[alanschu]

The thing is, if you step back and look at it, the operating systems that have survived, were better than the previous ones.

 

 

There's a reason why no one was ever forced to buy Windows Me. It sucked the big one, and never got the installed base. If Vista is as crappy as many make it out to be, people will stick with XP. The primary reason behind us eventually having to use XP is because eventually, XP became more widespread than 9x.

 

When I finally switched to XP, I found it superior to my 98 SE in almost every way (what's that, I don't need to restart for changing my IP? What a novel concept!!!). And I don't find myself feeling I need to reformat every year.

 

 

If Vista sucks, people won't buy it. MS wasn't successful in trying to get the OEM manufacturers to make Windows Me the home user operating system (I found it quite funny that you could buy Win 98 SE long after wholesale distributors quit selling Me). Microsoft is a big company, but I don't think even they have the capability to force a crappy Vista down our throats while XP is around. If Vista doesn't have good sales, software companies will not make software for it, as it wouldn't be economically viable to do so.

 

Heck, you can't even get people to adopt a superior operating system if it doesn't have the software support. Microsoft needs to get the software support for Vista for Vista to be successful. Otherwise, Vista will tank. If no one buys it (because it's too restrictive or whatever), then no one is going to bother developing for it.

[mkreku]

If Windows ME had been the only OS to choose from, and Microsoft had gone the usual route of not making the drivers backwards compatible, then yes, people would have bought crappy ME eventually. But Windows XP was released just over a year after ME, so people actually had a choice for once.

 

So who knows, maybe the reason noone bought Windows ME was because it sucked, or because of XP being the newest version only a year after ME's release. I believe the latter.

[alanschu]

So who knows, maybe the reason noone bought Windows ME was because it sucked, or because of XP being the newest version only a year after ME's release. I believe the latter.

 

I'm not convinced people would have just bought Windows ME.

 

This is because people were opting to buy Windows 98 SE instead of Windows ME, and distributors were opting to NOT stock Windows ME, and instead continue ordering Windows 98 SE. There became a point in time when my Dad (who own his own computer shop) was unable to buy Windows ME, but could still get Windows 98 SE. Windows ME was discontinued before Windows 98 SE.

 

And the sales trends were not that people were buying XP instead. Before XP was even released, ME was already losing any steam, and people were continuing to buy 98 SE. They weren't all buying XP instead of ME. Windows 98 SE still continued to sell after XP was released.

 

 

If Windows ME had been the only OS to choose from, and Microsoft had gone the usual route of not making the drivers backwards compatible

 

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this. It was still possible to run MS-DOS applications in Windows 98 SE (which many actually criticized it for). Microsoft didn't drop support for Windows 9x until July 11, 2006 (2.5 years later than they originally planned to drop support for it). I know 3rd party developers stopped supporting Win98 before this, but I'm curious what drivers you are talking about that Microsoft decided to stop making backwards compatible.

 

 

According to Google, Windows 98 was still making up 16% of the Operating Systems that accessed Google in June 2004.

[mkreku]

I'm not convinced people would have just bought Windows ME.

We'll never know. But people usually want the latest version of everything, no matter if it's better or not. Microsoft would claim it was better and that's enough for most.

 

I know 3rd party developers stopped supporting Win98 before this, but I'm curious what drivers you are talking about that Microsoft decided to stop making backwards compatible.

I guess that depends on how you look at it. If I have a program that works in Windows ME but not in Windows 98, is it the fault of the third party developer or the OS? I would blame the OS.

 

Halo 2 will demand Vista to be able to run. Why is that, do you think? Is it because Vista is such a giant leap forward in programming technology that it would be impossible to make Halo 2 run under Windows XP? I don't believe that. Actually, I could bet money on some amateur porting DirectX 10 to Windows XP within a year after it's been released. We'll see.

[alanschu]

I guess that depends on how you look at it. If I have a program that works in Windows ME but not in Windows 98, is it the fault of the third party developer or the OS? I would blame the OS.

 

What software worked on ME but not on 98? I know that some MS-DOS applications no longer ran that required Real Mode MS-DOS, but I'm unaware of issues with stuff that could run on ME but not on 98. Also, when I was talking about 3rd party developers, I was referring to driver releases. And I should have said Win9x instead of just Win98, though the reason why I had said Win98 was because I was discussing the official date that support for Win98 was stopped (which, not too coincidentally, happened to be the day that support for WinME also stopped).

 

 

I find your labelling of the blame to be absurd though. It sounds like you are holding Microsoft accountable for not maintaining 100% backwards compatibility in their OS. Sorry, but I'd rather my OS no longer rely on the old 16-bit DOS architecture anymore.

 

The funny thing is that I found Apple much less forgiving with their OS upgrades than Microsoft. Even now, I can still install and run Win9x applications in WinXP. Sometimes there are issues, but often they can be remedied simply by enabling compatibility mode. Mac OS 9 users are flat out screwed if the software only supported Mac OS X when it came out.

 

Even before that, stuff that ran in System 6 often didn't work when System 7 came out. The issues continued through to OS 8 and OS 9 as well. Backwards compatibility was very, very poor.

 

My familiarity with linux isn't so hot, so I'm not so sure how backwards compatible it is (whether with linux or unix).

 

 

Halo 2 will demand Vista to be able to run. Why is that, do you think? Is it because Vista is such a giant leap forward in programming technology that it would be impossible to make Halo 2 run under Windows XP? I don't believe that.

 

Neither do I. Not too surprisingly though, Halo 2 is a Microsoft product. And they recognize that Software Support is required for the success of an operating system. They're just doing what they can to support their own product. However, the only real way Microsoft can get other developers to do something like this is if they offer an incentive to developers to do it (usually money). If the OS doesn't initially take off, this can get quite expensive, with little return on investment.

 

Your example of Halo 2 is hardly a good one. I don't really see it as being the "killer app" of the OS, that spearheads the success of Vista. Especially if Vista is as bad as much of the hype is trying to convince us it is. In fact, I see Halo 2 as being enough of a niche product (in the grand scheme of computer users) that appeals to a single demographic (gamers, whom are typically power users ahead of the curve) as a way to possibly promote sales of the OS. Any hardcore anti-console fanboi that wants to play it will probably buy Vista.

 

Ironically, these same people will also be the testbed that provides the feedback for the rest of the world for how ****ty Vista really is (not unlike ME, which had strong initial sales, but was eventually surpassed by 98 SE).

 

 

We'll never know. But people usually want the latest version of everything, no matter if it's better or not. Microsoft would claim it was better and that's enough for most.

 

I think you may be confusing "most" people with "hardcore" people. According to Google (which seems to be as unbiased of a source as I can quickly find), the percentage of operating systems that accessed Google was lead by Windows 98 until June, 2003 (Windows ME never made any significant impact on this list). I'm not sure of the biases this information may have (personally I think it's conservative), but it's the best I could do on short notice.

 

I think the fact that Microsoft continued support for Win9x until 2 months ago, despite it not being the main OS marketted by Microsoft for 5 years indicates that people aren't necessarily that quick to jump off the 9x boat. Yes there's a lot of people that like to keep up with the Jones', but there's also a lot of people that find computers intimidating, and adopt an "if it's not broken, don't fix it" attitude. Especially when concerning costs, and all the hassles that go with upgrading an operating system.

 

 

As for never knowing, I still find it interesting that the successor to 98 (windows ME) was not the alternative OS for the home user. It was Windows 98 SE. When big OEM distributors like Dell revert back to preinstalling Windows 98 SE from Windows ME, I have a feeling it's not just because XP is coming.

Edited October 10, 2006 by alanschu

[mkreku]

I don't see the relevancy of almost anything you mentioned in your post. The only question is: if XP hadn't arrived and Windows ME had been the only successor to Windows 98, do you still think people would be using 98 today instead of ME, and do you think ME products would be compatible with 98?

 

I believe we'd all be sitting with ME by now, 98 had been discontinued and nothing released today would work in 98.

 

Vista will support DX9 (and lower) through a software layer, ie. an emulator. You think XP couldn't have handled both 16-bit applications and earlier Windows-version programs better, had Microsoft supported it?

[alanschu]

I don't see the relevancy of almost anything you mentioned in your post. The only question is: if XP hadn't arrived and Windows ME had been the only successor to Windows 98, do you still think people would be using 98 today instead of ME, and do you think ME products would be compatible with 98?

 

You're the one talking about backwards compatibility (which as far as I know, wasn't an issue for Windows ME and Windows 98), and bringing up Halo (a game published by Microsoft) as an example of software being Vista only. If you don't see the relevancy, then I think you're just standing there with your fingers in your ears saying "I'm not listening."

 

I believe we'd all be sitting with ME by now, 98 had been discontinued and nothing released today would work in 98.

 

Based on what? The structure of the operating systems were exceptionally similiar. Besides, what your discussing is hardly unique to Microsoft. Apple already went through a big giant "We're not supporting you guys any more" when they shifted from OS 9 to OS X. Furthermore, as I stated in the previous post, Apple's track record with backwards compatibility of its OS is much worse than Microsoft's.

 

And given the poor reception ME was starting to get before XP was released, no, I do not think people would have wholeheartedly embraced it. Given the fact that MAJOR OEM retailers like Dell had stopped shipping Windows ME preinstalled, and went back to preinstalling Windows 98 SE, is pretty friggin' huge. Because the "most people" that you were talking about buy their computers from places like the Dell.

 

 

Vista will support DX9 (and lower) through a software layer, ie. an emulator. You think XP couldn't have handled both 16-bit applications and earlier Windows-version programs better, had Microsoft supported it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think XP could have, but I also understand the woes of code bloat. I'd rather it didn't support 16-bit applications and earlier Windows versions, because legacy support is not always a good thing. XP has enough overhead as it is....I'd rather it not have even more overhead by worrying about whether or not it can run MS-DOS applications effectively. Unless you think that there's a significant benefit to still having full MS-DOS support. No operating system maintains that type of backwards compatibility.

 

I'm not too aware of many operating systems that maintain full backwards compatibility for the last 20 years. But hey, Microsoft is big, and it's cool to hate them, so let's hold them to standards higher than everyone else.

 

 

But hey, I'm sure people will have no problems loading up a draconian operating system (which Vista allegdly is) that will basically take away from the capabilities that the vast amount of computer users today enjoy. But wait, it's Microsoft, they're so big, that they can push it through regardless. IBM once thought the same thing. As did Apple, though to a lesser extent (and Apple knows full well how well an operating system will do without software support...it's arguably the reason why they lost their edge when the Macintosh came out).

 

 

 

 

EDIT: Besides, is what you are asking for even "backwards compatibility." It sounds like you're complaining that something designed for Me would not work with 98. Which really isn't backwards compatibility.

 

Unless you want your operating systems to never provide additional functionality, what you are looking for just isn't a possibility. Same goes with processors and other hardware. Backwards compatibility typically entails whether or not stuff designed of 98 would work on ME.

 

Should software designed for Windows ME still be fully functional in MS-DOS? And no, it's not just Microsoft's fault, because much of the incompatibilities are in fact going to come from 3rd party hardware manufacturers no longer making drivers because there just isn't a point. Unless you want all hardware manufacturers to bloat their drivers so that they can run in 16-bit mode in addition to their 32-bit mode, which would essentially be a giant waste of money since people typically don't use MS-DOS any more.

 

The PS2 is backwards compatible with the PSX. That doesn't mean that PS2 games will work on a PSX, nor should it.

Edited October 10, 2006 by alanschu

[metadigital]

Windows XP SP1 Support Ends Tuesday

tophee writes

"ZDNet reports that support for Windows XP SP1 and SP1a will be ending this coming Tuesday. From the article: 'Microsoft will end support for Windows XP Service Pack 1 and SP1a on Tuesday, leaving people no option but to upgrade to Service Pack 2 if they wish to continue to receive crucial components, including security software.' Colin Barker of ZDNet notes, 'There's little reason for anyone to still be running SP1; SP2 contained a range of improvements to XP's security.'"

[Pidesco]

I use SP1, and have no problems whatsoever because of it.

[metadigital]

Yeah, loads of corporates negotiated "extended support" for Windows NT.

[angshuman]

Vista Hardware Restrictions

The first is that once you have installed Vista on a machine you can only move it once. If you have an upgrade of your motherboard or anything else that will cause the operating system to think that it is a new computer you have to buy a new copy of Vista.

Ha! Ha! That's the most retarded thing I've heard in years. Either the inquirer didn't accurately reproduce what their sources told them, or Microsoft has completely lost it.

[Spider]

I was under the impression that it already worked this way with XP. At least the cheaper licenses.

Edited October 13, 2006 by Spider

[kirottu]

Vista Hardware Restrictions

The first is that once you have installed Vista on a machine you can only move it once. If you have an upgrade of your motherboard or anything else that will cause the operating system to think that it is a new computer you have to buy a new copy of Vista.

Ha! Ha! That's the most retarded thing I've heard in years. Either the inquirer didn't accurately reproduce what their sources told them, or Microsoft has completely lost it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What the hell?

[Tigranes]

XP had that "cant move OS to other comps" thing but to a much lesser degree. I remember examining it on my new PC aaages ago, before reformatting with 98SE. It wasn't too strict, really, and it was eventually bypassed.

 

It has also been slashdotted, though I don't know how reliable that makes it.

 

Anyway, I used 98SE till 2005, when I wanted to use a couple of Adobe programs (Audition? or their movie one? cant remember) that needed XP for something. I don't expect to move to Vista for at least 3 years.

[Spider]

From what I understand, the XP implementation of this got a lot stricter when the windows validation tool came around (or a while after). Remember that this is for the cheapest licenses that are supposed to be tied to one computer (hence why they are so cheap).

 

I could be wrong though, it's possible I read about how it was going to be in Vista and my memory is playing tricks on me. It's been a while since I read about it (2 months at least).

[Fenghuang]

Well after I upgraded it did that with XP but all I had to do to get it fixed was call the Support/Registration number that popped up in the dialogue box telling my my key wasn't valid and it was assigned to another computer. I told them I upgraded, told them what parts I upgraded, I assume they looked at their screen, hit some buttons, and my OS was good again.

 

Not that big a deal if Vista works the same way.

[angshuman]

Yes, XP does ask you to re-activate, but the process is pretty painless and straightforward. This happened to me when I upgraded the BIOS on my motherboard. From what the Inq article said, it may not be as straightforward with Vista.

[Meshugger]

Vista Hardware Restrictions

The first is that once you have installed Vista on a machine you can only move it once. If you have an upgrade of your motherboard or anything else that will cause the operating system to think that it is a new computer you have to buy a new copy of Vista.

Ha! Ha! That's the most retarded thing I've heard in years. Either the inquirer didn't accurately reproduce what their sources told them, or Microsoft has completely lost it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That will never work.

[Pop]

Sounds like MSoft to me. Microsoft Works could only be installed 4 times, at which point the disc became useless.