The obligatory Vista thread

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

Who has it, how crappy is it and how much slower are games on it?

 

[Morbus]

I don't have it, seen it for about a day long, it's t3h shinny, t3h r0undzorz, t3h s€xy and t3h bugzorz...

Anyway, I think it will settle down once its price drops. Here the cheapest version is about 300€ or something. The most expensive 600€...

Haxorz FTW!!!

 

[Wooz]

I recall Dove saying something about it, not sure.

 

[Briosafreak]

I still only have Vista RC1, it's just too expensive, I have other priorities for now.

 

[zioburosky13]

Piece of overpriced OS. Fucking basic version = 100USD...

 

[mortiz]

I can get a free version of the business edition from my university (one of the benefits of being a student) but I'll probably hold out and see if they put up the Ultimate Edition. Although I don't know if I'm really going to use all the extra crap.

 

[Milo]

Saw the "ultimate" edition selling for 259.00 US, how ridiculous is that?

 

[SuAside]

@ OP: well, slowly ATI is turning out better drivers and Nvidia cant allow it's competitor to get ahead, so I'm guessing it won't take too long. however, Vista remains a huge resourcehog (especially memorywise)

the big problems lie now with the other drivers, such as soundcard drivers. Vista removes the HAL layer between hardware and software, which make almost all previous drivers useless. the new drivers require a totally new approach.

on top of that comes the entire 32bit / 64bit bullshit. 64bit should be the obvious choice for most people, as more and more people own 64bit processors, yet the 64bit drivers are lagging behind even worse than the 32bit ones!

either way, i doubt i'll be buying this before SP1 hits the market (Q3 or Q4 2k7, the fastest SP release to date).

Piece of overpriced OS. Fucking basic version = 100USD...

Saw the "ultimate" edition selling for 259.00 US, how ridiculous is that?

OEM prices:

* Vista Home Basic $99 (full version retail: $199)
* Vista Home Premium: $119 (full version retail: $239)
* Vista Business: $149 (full version retail: $299)
* Vista Ultimate $199 (full version retail: $399)

but there is a catch, gentlemen!

What's missing from the OEM version?

When you buy OEM, you need to understand what you're getting.

OEM editions of Windows don't come in pretty boxes, nor do they include manuals. Of course, a real "manual" hasn't shipped with Windows for over a decade, and chances are, if you're interested in OEM software, you don't need what passes for a manual these days, anyway (and no, I was never satisfied by the pre-Win95 manuals, either). And the pretty box... well, that's not really worth much anyway, is it? Rest assured, though: the software on the disc is the same as that found in any retail edition.

There are some gotchas, though. OEM software cannot be returned once opened. There are no exceptions. You open it, you've bought it.

OEM software is also tied to the motherboard it is first installed on. Unlike the retail versions of Windows which can be transferred to a new computer, OEM versions are not transferable. What about upgrading hardware? Microsoft says that anything is fair game, except the motherboard. Replacing the motherboard in a computer results in a "new personal computer," which the company considers to be synonymous with a transfer. It's not permitted with an OEM edition of Windows.

Nevertheless, I've known users who got around this limitation by calling Microsoft and reporting that their motherboards died when they wanted to build a new computer. It is Microsoft's policy to allow motherboard swaps in instances where a system is defective or has suffered a hardware failure. But you shouldn't bank on this approach; there's no guarantee it will work and, well, liars don't get ice cream. Also, while retail versions of Vista include both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows, OEM versions are specific. You get one or the other. This follows from the per device restriction. The end result is that OEM versions may not be that attractive to users who frequently build new computers from the ground up.

Then there's support. Technically, OEM versions of Windows get first-tier support from the system builders who put the OEM software on your machine. In the case of Mom & Pop Computers, that means M&P is your first support hit. In the case of you buying OEM software for yourself, technically this means that you're your own support. What does this really mean? Retail Vista comes with 90 days of free support. OEM edition users don't get that, but paid support is still an option, should you need it.

so basically, you're relying on Mickeysoft's good will if you want to reinstall it on another pc once you ditched the other. upgrades are only allowed if the motherboard remains the same.

on top of that comes that the so called 'XP to Vista upgrade packs' you could buy in advance kills your XP key, making it invalid. there are ways around this (for those who frequent hardware newssites), but the average man in the street that wanted a dual boot between XP and Vista is sure to get his ass handed to him...

 

[Jebus]

snip

MAN, Microsoft sucks. I still can't grasp how inately evil those moneygrabbing bastards are.

 

[Morbus]

OEM software is also tied to the motherboard it is first installed on. Unlike the retail versions of Windows which can be transferred to a new computer, OEM versions are not transferable. What about upgrading hardware? Microsoft says that anything is fair game, except the motherboard. Replacing the motherboard in a computer results in a "new personal computer," which the company considers to be synonymous with a transfer. It's not permitted with an OEM edition of Windows.

Which, BTW, means OEM=Bullshit

 

[SuAside]

well, i think it was more or less the same with the XP OEM. after i reinstalled it twice, it didn't allow me to anymore and i had to call Mickey$oft to have it activated each time. considering i'm kind of a hardware- & tweakfreak, this was a fucking pain in the ass.

either way, almost always when i called, i had to explain myself to a human. last time however i had to do it against a telephone computer (which shouldve been faster since you get the options to choose from). it was hellish... the computer expects you to type down a confirmationstring of like 40 numbers at a relatively fast pace. i did fine, but i bet my parents would have one hell of a problem keeping up.

PS: i once changed my machine's mac-adress & XP prompted me to reactivate/revalidate my OS... that's kinda hilarious since that doesn't change anything to your hardware config.

 

[Ashmo]

Vista, eh?

Why would I POSSIBLY want to pay for that bug-ridden steaming pile of crap? Half of its development time went into DRM (that's marketing speech for "fucking customers up the ass and making money while at it") integration and nonsensical licensing fiddling, the other half went into trying to tie it all together in a remotely stable release. One release? Oh, pardon me. Fourteen releases or how many are there by now?

The "ooh pretty" was all copied verbatim from the latest MacOS X (amazing, considering they already pulled that stunt off with XP), which in turn only implemented what had already been presented with Linux eyecandy like Compiz.

Thanks to the crappy implementation of the eyecandy and all that DRM crap the performance requirements for idling in Vista are probably higher than for the entirety of the SETI project across the globe, too.

I don't see how any remotely intelligent person could even so much as "have a tendency" towards moving to Vista.

How come MS always releases a new bug-ridden version of their crappy OS when their past version has just evolved (through a bukkake of "service packs" and "performance upgrades") to a state that remotely resembles something you might call "kinda stable-ish"? Even more worrying is that the new version remains practically unusable until the first thousand bug-fixes (oh, wait -- they call those "security updates" nowadays) are out and yet costs six times of what the by-now-stable OS would cost if they hadn't forced the old OS out of the stores the second their new OS hits the market.

Vista? Fuck, no.

 

[SuAside]

I don't see how any remotely intelligent person could even so much as "have a tendency" towards moving to Vista.

1) dx10 (yes, as a gamer i like my shooters with some eyecandy).
2) the utter failure of linux emulators to easily install & run Windows games (there are a few exceptions, but those are just that: exceptions).

 

[Sander]

I don't see how any remotely intelligent person could even so much as "have a tendency" towards moving to Vista.

Because Vista *is* inherently safer and more stable.

 

[Morbus]

Is it?

 

[SuAside]

from a design point of view, it should be. but that practical side remains to be proven.

 

[Angrim]

Well, I don't have it nor have I seen it in action.

Now having read about Windows Vista, it seems that I am not going to buy it.

I think my 2,5-year-old PC would have difficulties to run, for example, games on it. Also the price is too high for me, at least now, 'cause I'm in school and out of job.

Also Vista's User Account Control seems to be pretty idiotic and Microsoft's license restrictions... well, suck ass.

And last but not least, I cannot believe how they can rip off Mac Os X so much.

 

[Morbus]

I got some quotes i found interesting It's a good read i think. (from rpgcodex)

I'd like to kick off a discussion about Windows Vista and see what attitudes other Codexer's have about adoption of the new MS OS. I've been using windows since 3.1 came out and the only version I've never used is ME, lucky escape.. I don't have any particular hatred for MS or Windows, but I do dislike their way of gaining market share. I currently run Windows 98, 2k (was just for work, but now so many games don't run on 98 ) & Ubuntu on my PC - so I'm still not an XP user at home.

I've not read much about Vista, but here are some of the things that concern me:

*DirectX 10 will only be on Vista. The biggie for gamers, and a huge deal potentially. I hate the idea of being forced to upgrade just because I want to play games, although given recent gameplay trends this may cease to be an issue...

* Protected Media Path, which is designed to seriously degrade the playback quality of any video and audio running on systems with hardware components not explicitly approved by Microsoft. WTF? I knew Vista would have DRM from the bottom up, but this is more than I expected! (read this)

* Huge system requirements. 1Gb not enough?

* Introduces a new markup language, called "XAML." This language seems designed to attack the existing Open Standard HTML and is ground-up dependent on Windows. MS said they were after control of the internet years back, is this their strategy?

* Many other attempts to lock users into MS tech. This is an interesting read.

* User does not have full control of their own OS! linky

My attitude a few months ago was that I might either upgrade to XP or possibly hold off for a couple of years and then go direct 2k->vista. The only thing I had a problem with was DX10 really, but now I think that there is no way I will ever want to move to Vista. I hate losing control and having corporations trying to gain control for profit.

I wonder how this will play out over the next few years.. will enough people end up stealth upgraded (buy new PCs etc) or don't care about any issues except is it the latest thing to run games that we all get forced to use it or be obsolete for games/internet/sharing docs/whatever... ?

I don't really think I want it. Hopefully there'll be user-made hackses to allow DX10 to run on XP - there's no legit reason it can't be done, is there?

Lots, the underlying graphics system has been seriously reworked for vista. Multiple threads can use the GPU for a start..

I'm pretty sure that the only reason that DX10 is Vista exclusive is because MS makes more money that way than if it were also released for XP.

__________________________________________________________________

Alongside the all-or-nothing approach of disabling output, Vista requires that any interface that provides high-quality output degrade the signal quality that passes through it if premium content is present. This is done through a “constrictor” that downgrades the signal to a much lower-quality one, then up- scales it again back to the original spec, but with a significant loss in quality. So if you're using an expensive new LCD display fed from a high- quality DVI signal on your video card and there's protected content present, the picture you're going to see will be, as the spec puts it, “slightly fuzzy”, a bit like a 10-year-old CRT monitor that you picked up for $2 at a yard sale (see the Quotes for real-world examples of this). In fact the specification specifically still allows for old VGA analog outputs, but even that's only because disallowing them would upset too many existing owners of analog monitors. In the future even analog VGA output will probably have to be disabled. The only thing that seems to be explicitly allowed is the extremely low-quality TV-out, provided that Macrovision is applied to it.

Sucks. But I pirate most of my movies and telivision (dont have a set) anyway, now I have a justification.

I went with the obsolete bit, except i'll probably upgrade as soon as there is some kind of crack or fix that disables/bypasses all that DRM nonsense. If it's at all possible, that is. If it isn't possible, well, let's just say i won't be buying any HD-movies. Ever.

__________________________________________________________________

XAML is a declarative object markup language with a primary focus on windows forms objects and vector graphics. Not a replacement for HTML. It's a developer tool, not an attempt to pull an Internet explorer. If anything it affects flash's teeny market share for 'pretty' native application front ends.

__________________________________________________________________

is there any techie who can explain why it's such a huge performance hog? Is there actually any real benefit to this or is it just to show "spiffy" interface graphics that i don't give a shit about?

It isn't, though the base memory requirement has increased, pushing some games out of the comfort zone for being able to run in 1 gig. There are teething problems with some game/driver combos .Get 2 gig of ram and you will mostly be fine.

Nope. No reason to. My current system works for what I need it to, and there isn't any reason to pay to shift to the latest thingamabob. There also isn't any Vista-only software that I need or even want.

but just out of curiosity what's the deal in a OS taking nearly 1 GB of RAM? I mean, actually I can run Linux (FC5) in graphical mode with Gnome and shit and it uses total ~ 90 MB

Bloated code is the simple answer.

My theory, however involves stuffing a dozen+ 'user-friendly' applications into active memory, rather than make the user 'suffer' through a few seconds of loading time. Because clearly, lagging system performance over-all isn't something a user will notice (they'll get accustomed to that), but they'll whine and snivel and complain if apps they use occasionally take a touch longer to load.

__________________________________________________________________

Gamespot[/url]]There will also be a new logo for "Games for Windows" on game packaging. To qualify, games must meet a set of guidelines--including easy install; compatibility with the Xbox 360 controller; Vista compatibility; and support for widescreen resolution, multicore, and multithreading.

This can only mean good things for the future

Holy shit, that rules out entire genres. Love to see you play a serious filght sim without a keyboard / joystick or any decent strategy game without a mouse.

That is odd and I don't really believe it. For example, Company of Heroes is a "Games for Windows" product and I don't see how they got controller compatibility for that one. My guess is this one can be waived, unless you are already making your game compatible to logitech or other third party gamepads.

__________________________________________________________________

And how do you expect us Eastern Europeans to upgrade for the newest shit? Its too expensive! But anyway, I dont much care. The only game Im mildly interested in is The Witcher. Im not going to upgrade just because I could run Xbox ports such as Halo or other crap.

 

[Ashmo]

Most of the development time and bloated code went into DRM integration and other junk the (advanced) end user couldn't care less about, as far as I can tell.

DirectX 10 is an attempt at forcing wary gamers into buying the new OS when their old one still works (or at least dangle enough carrots in front of them so they re-consider the drawbacks).

XAML is an attempt to stop the rise of other, OPEN, XML interface description languages (XUL etc) in their tracks, because Microsoft strictly adheres to the good old NIH policy ("Not Invented Here", aka Reinventing the Wheel) because they can't enforce their 1984esque policies on users of open source alternatives.

If you consider how much of the performance requirements is caused by code with the sole purpose of DRM control and vendor lock-in, it's not funny.

 

[Sorrow]

That's why I'm still using win98.