EVE Search - New computer

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

New computer - OS advice

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
WredStorm Gallente Garoun Investment Bank	Posted - 2008.01.16 17:15:00 - [1] Hello all, I'm about to build a new computer that will be primarily for game playing. It'll probably be an Intel quadcore (I know not a lot games support multiple cores but I like to be able to play poker and fiddle around at times while also running Eve). I plan on picking up an nVidia 8800GT video card (just one, not SLI). Where I'm stuck is trying to figure out whether I want to stick with Windows XP or if I want to move to Vista (most likely the Home Premium edition as I don't see anything in the Ultimate version that I'd really need). My questions are: 1) Does one have to be running Vista in order to use the premium graphics in Eve? 2) Will Eve run okay on the 64 bit version of Vista? 3) Is there a difference between the retail vs. system builder (OEM) versions of Vista other than the fact that the OEM version has different licensing and support (e.g.: do they have all the same drivers, etc.)? 4) If you have personal experience with both operating systems, which would you recommend for a gaming computer? Thanks for any help/insights, WredStorm
RaTTuS BIG Ka-Tet	Posted - 2008.01.16 17:16:00 - [2] Go with XP though nothing really wrong with vista .. [well apart from the usual ] -- BIG Lottery, BIG Deal, InEve [Now Verified] & Recruiting
Kirao	Posted - 2008.01.16 17:19:00 - [3] 1) No. Eve is DX9 not DX10 2) 64 bit vista = driver nightmare :P Also a waste of time. How many 64 bit apps do you have ? 3) Retail gives 32 and 64 bit versions, oem is either 32 OR 64 4) Xp seems to perform faster than Vista. (i dual boot both) On 3dmark06 i get an increased score with XP. Eve's in game frame rate shows a few frames faster with xp Overall XP seems far more suited to gaming than vista.
Frug Zenithal Harvest	Posted - 2008.01.16 17:23:00 - [4] Vista is for suckers and offers nothing of any value while consuming more resources. - - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - - If you think I'm awesome, say BOOO BOOO!! - Ductoris Neat look what I found - Kreul Hey, my marbles
Alowishus Pastry Coalition Sex Panthers	Posted - 2008.01.16 17:24:00 - [5] Edited by: Alowishus on 16/01/2008 17:24:39 XP for games. Vista for...? When Microsoft stops supporting XP in two years I am going to cry. And since I'm head of IT here at work and all our machines currently run XP, I'm probably also going to drink a bucket of Clorox. /makes fart noise
Kirao	Posted - 2008.01.16 17:27:00 - [6] Vista is XP pre servicepack. We will all be using Vista eventually. Just like we all moved over to XP despite all the cries of how bad it was when it was first released. Saying this though, your a monkey if you dont wait a long while for vista to stabilise :P

CCP Wrangler	Posted - 2008.01.16 17:28:00 - [7] Eventually you probably have to move over to Vista, but having both, right now I'd recommend XP. Wrangler Community Manager CCP Games, EVE Online Email / Netfang "The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it."

Alowishus Pastry Coalition Sex Panthers	Posted - 2008.01.16 17:33:00 - [8] Originally by: Kirao Just like we all moved over to XP despite all the cries of how bad it was when it was first released. Pre SP1 XP was still far better than ME. Those switching from 2000 may have cried but anyone switching from ME was probably in heaven. ME was, by far, the worst MS OS ever. Here it is as PC World's #4 (of 25) worst tech products of all time. ME made me homicidal. /makes fart noise
Frug Zenithal Harvest	Posted - 2008.01.16 17:38:00 - [9] Originally by: CCP Wrangler Eventually you probably have to move over to Vista, but having both, right now I'd recommend XP. We can always hope vista goes the way of ME. - - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - - If you think I'm awesome, say BOOO BOOO!! - Ductoris Neat look what I found - Kreul Hey, my marbles
Kirao	Posted - 2008.01.16 17:38:00 - [10] Originally by: Alowishus Originally by: Kirao Just like we all moved over to XP despite all the cries of how bad it was when it was first released. Pre SP1 XP was still far better than ME. Those switching from 2000 may have cried but anyone switching from ME was probably in heaven. ME was, by far, the worst MS OS ever. Here it is as PC World's #4 (of 25) worst tech products of all time. ME made me homicidal. People actually installed ME ??
BritBullet R.U.S.T. Phalanx Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.16 17:39:00 - [11] I never really had any problems with ME. ______________________________________________
Alowishus Pastry Coalition Sex Panthers	Posted - 2008.01.16 17:40:00 - [12] Originally by: CCP Wrangler Eventually you probably have to move over to Vista Yes, once MS stops supporting XP, every hacker in the galaxy will exploit it and there will be no patches coming out to seal up the holes. You'll have to switch to Vista to be secure (I can practically hear all the Linux users rolling their eyes at this). If you want to stick with MS, that is. Linux and Mac are inherently secure because MS operating systems are the low hanging fruit for hackers. I'm not sure what I'll do at home. At work dealing with Vista is inevitable. I'm not worried about dealing with Vista day-to-day so much, it's the upgrade/migration I am concerned with. We have a very delicate production system and it has really limited our ability to upgrade software, let alone operating systems. It's going to be hell for me. /makes fart noise
Khanid Kutie I R Teh Poasting Alt Corp	Posted - 2008.01.16 17:41:00 - [13] Originally by: RaTTuS Go with XP though nothing really wrong with vista .. [well apart from the usual ] nothing wrong with vista?? you're kidding, right?
Alowishus Pastry Coalition Sex Panthers	Posted - 2008.01.16 17:44:00 - [14] Edited by: Alowishus on 16/01/2008 17:44:44 Frug, I've already been speculating about that. ME didn't last long because it was so terrible. It's too early to tell if Vista is as bad, but if it is then hopefully Microsoft pulls an ME. Originally by: Kirao People actually installed ME ?? No. But it seems that moms, sisters and grandparents bought billions of HP Pavilions and Compaq Presarios preloaded with it and it was a nightmare for every "computer guy" in a family. /makes fart noise
DigitalCommunist Obsidian Core	Posted - 2008.01.16 17:49:00 - [15] XP was pretty bloated and slow compared to Windows 98, and I hated the file structure tampering too. Getting your hardware to work was a pain and a lot of your old programs had repeatability issues. Vista is the same, and I guarantee you the only reason every gamer isn't using Vista right now is because DX10 is a load of crap. Virtually every advantage it gives is from the development side, and so far I haven't seen a single game pull off even a mediocre advantage in graphics that couldn't be made to work under DX9. Failing that, every person would still be on Vista if it were faster than XP, and it isn't. Eventually that's going to happen, but most likely because of new hardware and XP's lack of support - same way 98 died. Microsoft needs to start making two versions of windows only - Client and Server, with both being configurable for home or business environments. Client should sell for maybe 100 bucks tops and Server should sell for maybe 500. Both need to have amazingly intuitive and efficient UIs. _______________________________ Complex Fullerene Shards; why God? :\|
Neamus	Posted - 2008.01.16 17:51:00 - [16] I've been running 64bit Vista Home Premium on my newer machine for some time now and bar one or two minor issues it's been a very reliable and capable games machine OS. Providing you have the hardware to back it up (you'll want 4GB RAM for x64) you should be fine. XP is a good OS, especially for older hardware but if you are buying new components I cant think of any good reason not to at least try Vista.
Rawr Cristina Caldari Cult of Rawr	Posted - 2008.01.16 17:56:00 - [17] I miss Win98se best MS OS ever imo. I only stopped using it mid-2006 and only because nothing supported it anymore. WTS Moros
Kirao	Posted - 2008.01.16 17:58:00 - [18] Originally by: Neamus I cant think of any good reason not to at least try Vista. Compared to XP its slower Driver support isnt great Cost Doesnt offer anything new Application compatibility isnt that great DRM (TPM)
Richard Phallus	Posted - 2008.01.16 17:59:00 - [19] Vista is the new Microsoft Bob --
Alowishus Pastry Coalition Sex Panthers	Posted - 2008.01.16 18:04:00 - [20] Originally by: DigitalCommunist Microsoft needs to start making two versions of windows only - Client and Server, with both being configurable for home or business environments. Client should sell for maybe 100 bucks tops and Server should sell for maybe 500. Both need to have amazingly intuitive and efficient UIs. Microsoft doesn't have the billion or so tech support people that would be needed when all the moms/sisters/grandparents call in when they changed something in their totally configurable OS and had an undesirable result. The answer is to get Linux and do whatever you want, or if you're incapable for any number of reasons, get Microsoft, eat your **** and ask for seconds. Microsoft isn't about being good, it's about being universal. It's directed at the laymen because there are more of them. It's a vicious cycle because most development is geared toward the OS that is geared toward the most people. It has been and always will be Microsoft. I've pretty much accepted it and haven't even messed with Linux in eight years. /makes fart noise
Frug Zenithal Harvest	Posted - 2008.01.16 18:34:00 - [21] Originally by: Rawr Cristina I miss Win98se best MS OS ever imo. I only stopped using it mid-2006 and only because nothing supported it anymore. I used to think that too, but XP has now proven itself as the best OS available in my opinion. And it's very painful for me to acknowledge something like that. It hurts my soul. But the people who are comparing Vista to XP by saying "well XP sucked when it first came out too" are generalizing in a silly way. Just because it's newer doesn't mean its better, and it doesn't mean it ever will be better. XP introduced some significant changes that users needed. USEFUL changes. What does vista do aside from consume more memory and run slower? For 98 users you could say "well XP does this and this, and 98 can't." What does vista have? DX10? - - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - - If you think I'm awesome, say BOOO BOOO!! - Ductoris Neat look what I found - Kreul Hey, my marbles
DigitalCommunist Obsidian Core	Posted - 2008.01.16 18:55:00 - [22] Originally by: Alowishus Originally by: DigitalCommunist Microsoft needs to start making two versions of windows only - Client and Server, with both being configurable for home or business environments. Client should sell for maybe 100 bucks tops and Server should sell for maybe 500. Both need to have amazingly intuitive and efficient UIs. Microsoft doesn't have the billion or so tech support people that would be needed when all the moms/sisters/grandparents call in when they changed something in their totally configurable OS and had an undesirable result. The answer is to get Linux and do whatever you want, or if you're incapable for any number of reasons, get Microsoft, eat your **** and ask for seconds. Microsoft isn't about being good, it's about being universal. It's directed at the laymen because there are more of them. It's a vicious cycle because most development is geared toward the OS that is geared toward the most people. It has been and always will be Microsoft. I've pretty much accepted it and haven't even messed with Linux in eight years. I run both, and I've got extensive experience with different OS. What you've just given me is the party line that everyone's come to believe. Ubuntu isn't any more difficult to the layman whose using Windows 98 for the first time. Slackware on the other hand, is what the Linux geek would use. If I'm experienced with various operating systems, and I can only navigate my way around Vista because of my experiences with other MS products, doesn't it stand to reason that Microsoft is no longer targeting the PC newbie? Rather, they've begun focusing on people who grew up with their stuff and are looking for something with more depth than Windows 98. They have the largest installed user base in the desktop market, and they can afford to do that. But don't think for one second that what Microsoft is focusing on is somehow the broadest form of PC use. _______________________________ Complex Fullerene Shards; why God? :\|
Jurgen Cartis Caldari Interstellar Corporation of Exploration	Posted - 2008.01.16 19:28:00 - [23] Originally by: Alowishus Edited by: Alowishus on 16/01/2008 17:44:44 Frug, I've already been speculating about that. ME didn't last long because it was so terrible. It's too early to tell if Vista is as bad, but if it is then hopefully Microsoft pulls an ME. Originally by: Kirao People actually installed ME ?? No. But it seems that moms, sisters and grandparents bought billions of HP Pavilions and Compaq Presarios preloaded with it and it was a nightmare for every "computer guy" in a family. This. OP, if you can pull it off cheaply, you might consider dual booting. There's nothing too horrendously wrong with Vista right now, but it just doesn't seem to add much over XP. I'm personally waiting until Microsoft puts out SP1 at least, then I'll probably buy a second hard drive and install Vista on that (student discount ftw). But in all likelihood, I'll use XP SP2 primarily (and occasionally Linux variants) until this computer dies on me somehow. -------------------- ICE Blueprint Sales FIRST!! -Yipsilanti Pfft. Never such a thing as a "last chance". ;) -Rauth
Grimm Myn Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.01.16 19:36:00 - [24] 1. No 2. Should yea 3. OEM = no support from microsoft, you gotta bring it back to the place you got it instead. thats all 4. Stick with XP until atleast SP1 for Vista. Personally, i loved 2000, that was the best OS imo. 98se was awesome too. ME was a laugh. And now im running XP on all my machines and love it, if i configure the menu and windows to look like 98/2000 style [404] Signature not found.
Zuko Droner	Posted - 2008.01.16 19:42:00 - [25] How about you just buy Vista, and install XP. When the time comes, move to Vista. Might have to find someone with a copy to install, and talk to some outsourced guy for actiavation but they never give a crap anyway.
MenanceWhite Amarr	Posted - 2008.01.16 19:47:00 - [26] XP. Test build of SP3 has been released, I'm currently using it and it's stable and has'nt crashed on me yet. Try it, it runs slightly faster than previous XP. --- Originally by: Torfi There's alot. That can be done. With.. corpses Originally by: Oveur
Damneia Achernius Northen Breeze	Posted - 2008.01.16 19:47:00 - [27] Originally by: Frug Vista is for suckers and offers nothing of any value while consuming more resources. only for ppl whit sucky pcs :P my laptop acctually runs vista premium better than xp pro whit sp2 only place where vista kest pwned hard is copying alot of stuff. from drive to drive and through netowork(lot slower than whit xp) overall i love vista even tho i run xp on my PC still :P
Fenderson Einherjar Rising Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2008.01.16 19:51:00 - [28] i will probably be flamed for saying this but i think vista will never see universal adoption. i know people compare the XP->Vista transition to previous transitions like win2k-->XP but that is just not a valid comparison imo. heres why: 1) win2k just plain sucked. there was a real need for the switch to the faaar more stable XP 2) competition from mac. altho i think this is the least important factor, macs are gaining market share fast. when XP came out, macs were basically a joke in the home computing market. 3) Linux. the latest versions of linux (especially ubuntu) are easy to use, easy to install, and are starting to be offered on alot more platforms. dell is now offering OEM ubuntu, for example. Linux is going to see very widespread adoption in the markets of developing nations, and therefore will eventually take over as the universal standard. bottom line: stick with XP for now, and dual-boot linux if you want to look toward the future. DO YOU PLAY POKER???? Join ingame channels "DOA Poker" and "Eve Online Hold'em"
Cassandra Beckinsale	Posted - 2008.01.16 19:53:00 - [29] Originally by: WredStorm Hello all, I'm about to build a new computer that will be primarily for game playing. It'll probably be an Intel quadcore (I know not a lot games support multiple cores but I like to be able to play poker and fiddle around at times while also running Eve). I plan on picking up an nVidia 8800GT video card (just one, not SLI). Where I'm stuck is trying to figure out whether I want to stick with Windows XP or if I want to move to Vista (most likely the Home Premium edition as I don't see anything in the Ultimate version that I'd really need). My questions are: 1) Does one have to be running Vista in order to use the premium graphics in Eve? 2) Will Eve run okay on the 64 bit version of Vista? 3) Is there a difference between the retail vs. system builder (OEM) versions of Vista other than the fact that the OEM version has different licensing and support (e.g.: do they have all the same drivers, etc.)? 4) If you have personal experience with both operating systems, which would you recommend for a gaming computer? Thanks for any help/insights, WredStorm Put OpenSuse 10.3 64 bit and reserve a 50 GB space for a windows XP system for gaming purposes. Microsoft OS suck totally and deserve only to be used for play games, like a console.
Fehz Combat and Mining Utility Inc. Brotherhood Of Steel	Posted - 2008.01.16 20:02:00 - [30] Originally by: Frug Vista is for suckers and offers nothing of any value while consuming more resources. spoken like a true "i'm terrified of change" zealot.. but seriously.. I have vista 64.. It was horrible in the first 3 months.. Drivers mainly, not Microsoft's fault that 3rd party hardware manufacturers didn't fix their drivers when RC1 or beta was out.. But go with Vista 32 bit IMHO. I'd like to see the 64-bit windows era be ushered in, but people also need their performance. In a lot of cases, 64-bit apps run slower from what I see. 64-bit was not supposed to be for increased performance though -- it was mainly to support more system resource for huge programs and databases and such. But with my core 2 duo overclocked to 3.2 ghz and an 8800gtx, I can run 2 eve clients @ 50-90 fps each while using the flip-3d feature of vista.. XP with SP3 is supposed to be nice though.. But if you want to run anything in DX10 like Call of Duty 4, Crysis, Bioshock.. You'll need Vista.
Nimrel	Posted - 2008.01.16 20:07:00 - [31] Edited by: Nimrel on 16/01/2008 20:13:01 I run Vista on all my home and work machines that aren't servers. I like XP too, but there are a lot of security changes in Vista -- some of them are visible (prompting for administrator access), some of them are not so visible (you're running as a limited user so it's extremely hard to get spyware), and some of them are completely invisible (there are around 15+ very important changes to how software is run that prevent most common security vulnerabilities that are exploited by hackers). If you do run Windows XP, be sure to run it as a limited user. This will get you about 75% of the protection from viruses and spyware that Vista has. Unfortunately, almost no-one does this. One reason is that most software (including Eve before Vista came out and forced the issue) would not run properly under a limited account (because almost no-one did, so almost no-one tested their software that way, chicken-and-egg problem). Vista has a whole bunch of 'workarounds' in it to allow software that breaks under a limited account in XP to think it's running under admin in Vista when it's not. This gets it a lot more application compatibility than XP running limited, though it's still not quite as good as XP running administrator. So if you really want your computer to run well over the long term because it has no viruses or spyware slowing it down and corrupting things, you choices are really XP as limited user or Vista. Between those two choices, Vista is a pretty clear winner. XP is still quite good, I ran it for 5 years using both limited and admin accounts with no anti-virus or spyware and never got a virus -- but I know what to avoid and my mom doesn't :-) Vista and XP limited are secure enough that you don't need anti-virus or anti-spyware. If you run XP as admin and then load up anti-virus and anti-spyware, you'll probably find your performance is worse than Vista without them. FYI, in early years (around 2000-2005 I believe) anti-virus was responsible for 10% of the XP Bluescreens -- they wrote kernel level drivers that would blow up all the time :-( All that said, some things in Vista (file copies) are dog slow. I'm really really waiting for SP1 to come out. But even pre-SP1 (and frankly, SP2 :-) ) I'm a big fan of Vista over XP, even though I'm a hardcore gamer. On x64 vs x32, I have a work machine running x64 and it has been a bit of a pain. If you buy retail, you can load it up, try it, and then back it out if you have driver problems. There are two reasons to go x64 -- if you have over 3 GB or RAM or if you want a little extra protection (there are one or two additional security fixes in x64 that didn't go into x32). (Disclaimer, I work at Microsoft and fixed a few -- just a few -- of the bugs in Vista)
Una D Ex Coelis	Posted - 2008.01.16 20:42:00 - [32] 2003 server. You get the security and improved resource handling and it works as nice as XP unlike vista where limited user mode might be good but it's bugging you all the time so most end up switching the damn thing off. Not to mention that you are supporting all the DRM crap in it. Stay with XP or 2003 server (if you are at the university I'm sure you have access to it for free (we do)).
Turin Caldari Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2008.01.16 20:56:00 - [33] DOS 3.22 is > * _________________________________
Tallann Amarr Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2008.01.16 21:12:00 - [34] I use Vista 32 and have no issues with it.(On several machines and haven't had a driver issue since day one(8months ago) and frankly at this point I believe the "poor driver support" is just a smear campaign perpetuated by ifanboiz or people who have never touched a vista machine.(64bit not withstanding) The file copy issue is quite annoying but has an "unnoficial" fix, as I have it on my laptop and desktop and have no issues with either of these things. There is an official fix with sp1 which I have access to but haven't installed yet, although i don't think it is publicly available yet, and haven't really looked into the official patch release day. However I don't really see the point in getting a quad-core cpu though, you would get better gaming performance from a cheaper dual core and 2 sli/crossfire video cards. I have not myself compared the gaming performance between an xp and a vista machine, but it is my understanding that xp under typical gaming hardware performs about a 1-2% better from the benchmarks I have seen. With significantly higher grade hardware this may be greater, or it may be lesser, I have not seen the tests as related to it. I happen to prefer Vista because the search allows me to do many things quicker than I could under xp. For a strict gaming machine though I really don't think there is much difference performance wise(1-2%), just go with whatever you prefer. I would however suggest not installing the x64 of Xp or Vista. Vista however does ship with the 32/64 in one package.
Alowishus Pastry Coalition Sex Panthers	Posted - 2008.01.16 21:17:00 - [35] Originally by: DigitalCommunist Ubuntu isn't any more difficult to the layman whose using Windows 98 for the first time. This is what we know and wish the rest of the world would find out. Originally by: DigitalCommunist If I'm experienced with various operating systems, and I can only navigate my way around Vista because of my experiences with other MS products, doesn't it stand to reason that Microsoft is no longer targeting the PC newbie? They aren't necessarily targeting only the PC newbie. They just need the their products to work for the PC newbie and be relatively unbreakable since the majority of PCs come with Windows. It'd be a tech support nightmare. They don't have to focus on the broadest form of PC use, they already have it, they just need it not to bite them in the ass later, hence the lack of control they give people over their OS. /makes fart noise
Everyone Dies Caldari Lucky Tampon	Posted - 2008.01.16 21:31:00 - [36] Originally by: Tallann I use Vista 32 and have no issues with it.(On several machines and haven't had a driver issue since day one(8months ago) and frankly at this point I believe the "poor driver support" is just a smear campaign perpetuated by ifanboiz or people who have never touched a vista machine.(64bit not withstanding) The file copy issue is quite annoying but has an "unnoficial" fix, as I have it on my laptop and desktop and have no issues with either of these things. There is an official fix with sp1 which I have access to but haven't installed yet, although i don't think it is publicly available yet, and haven't really looked into the official patch release day. However I don't really see the point in getting a quad-core cpu though, you would get better gaming performance from a cheaper dual core and 2 sli/crossfire video cards. I have not myself compared the gaming performance between an xp and a vista machine, but it is my understanding that xp under typical gaming hardware performs about a 1-2% better from the benchmarks I have seen. With significantly higher grade hardware this may be greater, or it may be lesser, I have not seen the tests as related to it. I happen to prefer Vista because the search allows me to do many things quicker than I could under xp. For a strict gaming machine though I really don't think there is much difference performance wise(1-2%), just go with whatever you prefer. I would however suggest not installing the x64 of Xp or Vista. Vista however does ship with the 32/64 in one package. ok vista fanboy.
Joe Starbreaker Starbreaker Spaceways	Posted - 2008.01.16 21:35:00 - [37] I built my computer and installed XP. If MS stops supporting XP, I just don't know. Linux I guess.
Radeberger Caldari I Care...... Seriously i do	Posted - 2008.01.16 22:23:00 - [38] The only reason why you should ever consider running 64bit windows for eve, should really be if you want to have more tha 3.25 GB of ram. Personally i'm running xp x64 with 8 GB of ram (running eve on ramdisk ftw ) without any problems. There's no reason to use the retail version of windows, since it's way more expensive that OEM, even if it does mean you get a few more privliges (a bit less strict limitations on hardware changes i believe). Technically it's the same operating system it's only the licence and support that's different, like you said. It's definitely not neccesary to get vista to run eve premium, however ccp has been working on a directx 10 version of eve, where vista would be neccesary, but that is all future. Is this a sig? i think not
kessah Blood Corsair's Blood Blind	Posted - 2008.01.16 22:24:00 - [39] Leopard
Kyra Felann Gallente Elite Storm Enterprises	Posted - 2008.01.16 22:36:00 - [40] No, you don't have to be running Vista for premium content, although I believe they are going to add DX10 support to Eve at some point and for that you will need Vista. Yes, Eve runs fine on Vista-64 (as does everything else I've tried). I'm not really sure about retail vs OEM versions. I'd recommend Vista. If you're building a new computer, I see no reason not to get Vista. I recently built a new gaming machine and I installed Vista and I'm happy with it. You will most likely want Vista for the DX10 anyway, so if you're building a new machine, you might as well get Vista (along with all Vista/DX10 compatible hardware) and be done with it.
Gharr Rhinn	Posted - 2008.01.16 22:48:00 - [41] I installed Vista Ultimate on a separate drive from XP Pro. Last night I slapped in a total of 8GB of Ram. Overall, I think Vista isn't as horrible as people make it out to me. There have been many many updates since its release so those whose first taste of vista was at release probably had a worse time. Everything I use has vista 64 drivers. Its more stable then I expected given peoples reviews, but still has some quirks. However for a gaming only I'd go with Vista. I've not had any problems with games.
Frug Zenithal Harvest	Posted - 2008.01.16 23:49:00 - [42] Originally by: Fehz Originally by: Frug Vista is for suckers and offers nothing of any value while consuming more resources. spoken like a true "i'm terrified of change" zealot.. Spoken like a computer illiterate fanboi who doesn't address what I said. :P I was very interested in Vista when it was released and went out of my way to do research on what they had put into it. Had you done the same you might see things differently. Originally by: Fehz But if you want to run anything in DX10 like Call of Duty 4, Crysis, Bioshock.. You'll need Vista. Proof of computer illiteracy. - - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - - If you think I'm awesome, say BOOO BOOO!! - Ductoris Neat look what I found - Kreul Hey, my marbles
Kazuo Ishiguro House of Marbles Zzz	Posted - 2008.01.17 00:21:00 - [43] I wouldn't bother with a quadcore processor. A good dualcore such as an E6750 is much cheaper and most of the time you're unlikely to notice a great deal of difference. Unless you can name several programs you commonly use that you know are optimised for quadcore processors, it's probably not worth getting one. My research services Spreadsheets: Top speed calculation - Halo Implant stats
Taedrin Gallente Royal Hiigaran Navy	Posted - 2008.01.17 03:33:00 - [44] Go Linux! Seriously, if it weren't so lacking with games I'd be using it all the time.
Nimrel	Posted - 2008.01.17 03:53:00 - [45] Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro I wouldn't bother with a quadcore processor. A good dualcore such as an E6750 is much cheaper and most of the time you're unlikely to notice a great deal of difference. Unless you can name several programs you commonly use that you know are optimised for quadcore processors, it's probably not worth getting one. Running three instances of Eve at once?
Una D Ex Coelis	Posted - 2008.01.17 09:15:00 - [46] Yea quadcore doesn't seem to help much. Eve is a very bad piece of programing. I get the whole computer acting all slow (4 cores) during the login screen for example. Not to mention that 2 clients throw up a **** load of graphic glitches. Not sure if it's 4 cores, 2600XT, 2003 server (works fine on 2003 server that I have on my laptop and it's an identical installation sans the drivers of course).
Psym0n Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.17 09:34:00 - [47] Edited by: Psym0n on 17/01/2008 09:34:30 Originally by: Radeberger There's no reason to use the retail version of windows, since it's way more expensive that OEM, even if it does mean you get a few more privliges (a bit less strict limitations on hardware changes i believe). Technically it's the same operating system it's only the licence and support that's different, like you said. OEM is for people that build and sell computers, as a manufacturer you provide support to your user if they have software and hardware problems. IF you buy OEM and your harddrive or motherboard failes, its likely you will need to reformat your PC, and upon trying to register an OEM key, it will not work as you ahve used it once allready. Look at it this way, my hard drive has failed once in about 6 years, and i have had to repurchase, in that time it went from XP to Vista, so i chucked my OEM XP and purchased Vista x64 (and a new pc) Retail is for home users, and you also purchase support from microsoft (not that its much good) and also get a 32bit and a 64bit version of the disks / 32bit version + a token for 64bit. Edit - And you can reinstall Retail disks without a problem, and have a licence to use it on a desktop and a "mobile" platform, not jsut the PC you buy it for in the OEM case.
Andrue Amarr	Posted - 2008.01.17 10:11:00 - [48] Originally by: Frug Vista is for suckers and offers nothing of any value while consuming more resources. I disagree. UAC has value. It is safer than running as Administrator all the time but not as inconvenient as running as a limited user. Those who say they get spammed with 'are you sure?' dialogs are either lying or have never actually used Vista for real. The dialogs appear as/when they are needed (exactly as several versions of Linux work in fact). In normal operation you don't get them very often. Of course if you add/remove hardware/software on a daily basis you might get a bit sick of the dialogs but mostly people hardly change their computers from month to month and so won't be bothered very often if at all. I suspect that a lot of the bad press for UAC is generated by reviewers who-by definition-are doing things that need administrative rights far more often than normal users. Even when you are asked, if you run as Administrator you only have to hit [Return] to continue. It's not like you have to keep typing your user name and password. If you know how to use a GUI properly (so few people do) then there's no need to move the mouse to click a button. Now as to whether the value of UAC is worth the cost of upgrading..that's another matter. I'll happily accept that there's nothing in Vista that's worth paying more than ú20 for but if you're getting a new machine and it has Vista on then IMO you're better off leaving it than downgrading to XP. -- (Battle hardened industrialist) [Brackley, UK] My budgie can say "ploppy bottom". You have been warned.
Andrue Amarr	Posted - 2008.01.17 10:18:00 - [49] Originally by: Kirao Compared to XP its slower Not much and the difference between Vista and XP is less than 12 months hardware development. By that I mean that if a new machine arrives with Vista it will be faster than the old XP one it replaces. Quote: Driver support isnt great Ack. I installed Vista only two weeks after Creative Labs released the drivers for my Xi-fi. It also couldn't handle the onboard USB sound and kept crashing. Quote: Cost Definite ack but as a free upgrade it's fine. Quote: Doesnt offer anything new Depends what you mean. If you mean compared to XP then you're wrong. If you mean that what it offers isn't Earth shakingly new or is available on other platforms then you're right. Quote: Application compatibility isnt that great I haven't noticed any issues but then I don't run a huge variety of applications. Quote: DRM (TPM) I don't like the concept but it doesn't really bother me. I didn't insist on converting my existing material to DRM and it lets me rip CDs without applying DRM. -- (Battle hardened industrialist) [Brackley, UK] My budgie can say "ploppy bottom". You have been warned.
Davos Breemer	Posted - 2008.01.17 10:38:00 - [50] Originally by: CCP Wrangler Eventually you probably have to move over to Vista, There's no 'have to' about it at all. I know I certainly won't be. From here on out it will only be Linux on my machines and I know several people who are doing the same.
Kazuo Ishiguro House of Marbles Zzz	Posted - 2008.01.17 10:59:00 - [51] Originally by: Nimrel Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro I wouldn't bother with a quadcore processor. A good dualcore such as an E6750 is much cheaper and most of the time you're unlikely to notice a great deal of difference. Unless you can name several programs you commonly use that you know are optimised for quadcore processors, it's probably not worth getting one. Running three instances of Eve at once? Heh, I forgot that people tend to do this - but wouldn't the graphics card usually represent the main bottleneck in this sort of situation? Also, it's a bit of a pain to force each client to run on separate core each time it starts, although I suppose this ought to be possible - any idea how to do this? My research services Spreadsheets: Top speed calculation - Halo Implant stats
Drykor Minmatar Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.01.17 11:58:00 - [52] I am getting vista 64 bit on my new computer, basically because XP support will disappear over time and I never had a legal XP version anyway, it would be a bit silly to buy one now. And I'm putting in 4 gb of ram 'cause I work with memory consuming programs alot and over 3.2 gb is not supported in 32 bit systems. I think Vista was pretty horrible when it came out though, but it has improved and will improve more over time. I'll probably still face some problems that I didn't have in XP but meh those things will be solved. And the new hardware I'll be using in it won't have driver problems anyway, just a pity there are no 64 bit drivers for my audiophile 2496 yet.
VeNT Minmatar Freelancer Union The Reckoning.	Posted - 2008.01.17 12:02:00 - [53] I'd recommend XP, theres going to be a new service pack out for vista soon enough and may make it better but I doubt it will make it better for EVE than XP already is. I seem to remember reading somewhere about after the new SP theres going to be a 30 day trial for vista (or something like that) so you could test it and see. also don't forget to dual boot linux so you can see what that is like too (for a 3rd option) -------------------- Eris; The Greek goddess of Chaos, Discord, Confusion and Things You Know Not Of.
Gillian Delilah	Posted - 2008.01.17 12:41:00 - [54] I'm running Vista Home Premium (64bit) on a quad-core 6600 with an 8800GTX (so pretty similar to the OP's intended specs) and am having no real problems with EVE. I did get one BSOD (after repeatedly alt-tabbing in and out of the client while attempting to do various other things with the machine at the same time). Generally I think I'm having fewer problems with the EVE client running on Vista than I was running it on my old XP machine. I have run into various other stuff that won't work with Vista, but I've been pleasantly surprised by how many things do work without problems. I'd recommend it for any new machines, but wouldn't recommend upgrading to it on older hardware. (I haven't really done any serious proper work with Vista yet, so can't really offer any comparisons between it and other OSes.)
Neamus	Posted - 2008.01.17 14:11:00 - [55] Edited by: Neamus on 17/01/2008 14:13:22 Originally by: Kirao Originally by: Neamus I cant think of any good reason not to at least try Vista. Compared to XP its slower Driver support isnt great Cost Doesnt offer anything new Application compatibility isnt that great DRM (TPM) Le sigh... Yes Vista is slightly slower at the moment but its no where near the massive gulf that ppl make it out to be. This is a pre SP1 OS atm, XP was no different.. Poor driver support was the same again when XP first arrived, the only thing that saved it a bit was that some of the Win2k drivers worked. ItÆs something that will improve with time, and tbh wonÆt even be an issue with the new hardware the OP is getting. 64bit Vista home premium can be had for less than ú70. If you already have XP then yes there is that cost, but its not enough to start crying about. There was a time when XP cost about that much, even now OEM XP Home is still only around ú15 less. There are new features in Vista over XP, I'm beginning to wonder if you've even seen Vista running? Perhaps you've just fallen prey to the anti MS brigade rhetoric? But ok, if you really want to take that route then I would argue that beyond plug and play there have been no genuine innovations in windows since NT4 was released. Once again, app compatibility is always a potential issue with a new OS, it was the same with Win2K and XP but for a games machine its fine.. I havenÆt had an issue with any of my games or gaming related apps (TS, Vent etc) so far. DRM is only an issue if you like illegal software, in the context of Eve it shouldnÆt be an issue. Vista wont stop you listening to your downloaded mp3 collection, or your dodgy movies.. It wont call the police on you.. TPM use in Vista is largely limited to the Bitlocker drive encryption feature, not really an issue for a games machine, or any other type of machine. We'll have to see what happens with future windows releases though, its possible that MS will start abusing the tech. For a new games machine I cant think of a good reason not to at least try Vista.
WredStorm Gallente Garoun Investment Bank	Posted - 2008.01.17 14:29:00 - [56] I'd like to thank everyone for all the feedback. The arguments for and against Vista are pretty much what I've seen elsewhere, but at least I know now that I can run XP and still get the premium graphics in Eve and if I do go Vista then 64bit is viable. As for what I'll do, I don't know yet for sure but I'm inclined to go a dual boot route right now with XP and Vista and then I can toss in Linux on the partition for whichever OS I decide to scrap out of those two. Thanks again, WredStorm
Reacz Caldari Empirius Enigmus Navy Insurgency	Posted - 2008.01.17 14:46:00 - [57] Windows Server 2003 Better than XP & Vista, plus its supported for the 4/5 years I believe.
Faye Valerii Caldari Exeunt Omnes	Posted - 2008.01.17 15:18:00 - [58] Vista is already semi-dead. Why ? Because businesses aren't upgrading to it. Right now, the general feeling in a lot of places is to stick with xp and server2k3, and wait for the next windows. Vista has far to many business-critical bugs, like the infamous eternal file copy bug. I'll admit Vista is more secure, but in a business environment this is not an advantage, as security is provided on the LAN/WAN level. And if you use a decent browser like Opera, stay away from illegal sites and don't mindlessly open every outlook attachment you see, you'll never get a virus anyway.
Psym0n Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.17 15:18:00 - [59] Edited by: Psym0n on 17/01/2008 15:25:02 Vista is not as bad as people make it out to be, providing you have hardware made in the pasy 2-3 years, there is minimal problems. If you buy from good manufactureres, drivers are provided on there sites, or if you are intelligent you buy from the same designer or manufacturer. Personally i have an EVGA nForce motherboard, an EVGA nVidia graphics card. The only drivers i ever need when i format my PC are nVidia and nVidia. I dont mind downloading 2 sets of drivers. Vista recognises nForce RAID, 32bit and 64bit. If you purchase webcams from Microsoft, Sound cards from Creative / nVidia you shouldnt have any problems. People are scared of change, and unfortunately there are a lot of hidden benefits to Vista that people dont see, apart form "omg, the start bar is different!". Originally by: Faye Valerii Vista is already semi-dead. Why ? Because businesses aren't upgrading to it. Right now, the general feeling in a lot of places is to stick with xp and server2k3, and wait for the next windows. Vista has far to many business-critical bugs, like the infamous eternal file copy bug. I'll admit Vista is more secure, but in a business environment this is not an advantage, as security is provided on the LAN/WAN level. And if you use a decent browser like Opera, stay away from illegal sites and don't mindlessly open every outlook attachment you see, you'll never get a virus anyway. I am migrating the business i work for over to Vista in July, i allready have a test enviroment with Vista clients, and even a RC1 Server 2008, which makes a fantastic Windows Deployment Server, has changed IAS into a fantastic Network Policy Server and even now allows "health validation" so if someone comes into my network with a laptop that has viruses, they cant join the network untill they clean up. I can understand the scare that large scale businesses with there in-house software applications will be having, but this only really affects pharmacutical and industrial sector companies, who most are still running 2000 anyway, as it "does the job" in there closed enviroment. New server technologies are a very good tool for network managers, and once people start using them they will see that eventually they will have to move to the more simpler tools. Everyone can say "blah blah mac linux" but as i run a windows network, its a good way forward.
Faye Valerii Caldari Exeunt Omnes	Posted - 2008.01.17 15:20:00 - [60] Originally by: Nimrel Edited by: Nimrel on 16/01/2008 20:13:01 I run Vista on all my home and work machines that aren't servers. I like XP too, but there are a lot of security changes in Vista -- some of them are visible (prompting for administrator access), some of them are not so visible (you're running as a limited user so it's extremely hard to get spyware), and some of them are completely invisible (there are around 15+ very important changes to how software is run that prevent most common security vulnerabilities that are exploited by hackers). If you do run Windows XP, be sure to run it as a limited user. This will get you about 75% of the protection from viruses and spyware that Vista has. Unfortunately, almost no-one does this. One reason is that most software (including Eve before Vista came out and forced the issue) would not run properly under a limited account (because almost no-one did, so almost no-one tested their software that way, chicken-and-egg problem). Vista has a whole bunch of 'workarounds' in it to allow software that breaks under a limited account in XP to think it's running under admin in Vista when it's not. This gets it a lot more application compatibility than XP running limited, though it's still not quite as good as XP running administrator. So if you really want your computer to run well over the long term because it has no viruses or spyware slowing it down and corrupting things, you choices are really XP as limited user or Vista. Between those two choices, Vista is a pretty clear winner. XP is still quite good, I ran it for 5 years using both limited and admin accounts with no anti-virus or spyware and never got a virus -- but I know what to avoid and my mom doesn't :-) Vista and XP limited are secure enough that you don't need anti-virus or anti-spyware. If you run XP as admin and then load up anti-virus and anti-spyware, you'll probably find your performance is worse than Vista without them. FYI, in early years (around 2000-2005 I believe) anti-virus was responsible for 10% of the XP Bluescreens -- they wrote kernel level drivers that would blow up all the time :-( All that said, some things in Vista (file copies) are dog slow. I'm really really waiting for SP1 to come out. But even pre-SP1 (and frankly, SP2 :-) ) I'm a big fan of Vista over XP, even though I'm a hardcore gamer. On x64 vs x32, I have a work machine running x64 and it has been a bit of a pain. If you buy retail, you can load it up, try it, and then back it out if you have driver problems. There are two reasons to go x64 -- if you have over 3 GB or RAM or if you want a little extra protection (there are one or two additional security fixes in x64 that didn't go into x32). (Disclaimer, I work at Microsoft and fixed a few -- just a few -- of the bugs in Vista) In the five or so years I've been using XP, I NEVER had a virus or spyware infection. And I don't use any protection whatsoever, except my router firewall. When I feel like it, I load a BOOTPE cd and run a virus/spyware scan, never found anything yet.
Una D Ex Coelis	Posted - 2008.01.17 16:09:00 - [61] Originally by: Faye Valerii In the five or so years I've been using XP, I NEVER had a virus or spyware infection. And I don't use any protection whatsoever, except my router firewall. When I feel like it, I load a BOOTPE cd and run a virus/spyware scan, never found anything yet. Dito. But that usualy implies that you know something about the computers and are not just mindelesly clicking in unpatched IE, opening all the **** from OE and than trade funny programs over MSN or whatever is cool for kids now days (ICQ FTW, first and still the best).
Frug Zenithal Harvest	Posted - 2008.01.17 16:20:00 - [62] Edited by: Frug on 17/01/2008 16:21:03 Originally by: Andrue Originally by: Frug Vista is for suckers and offers nothing of any value while consuming more resources. I disagree. UAC has value. It is safer than running as Administrator all the time but not as inconvenient as running as a limited user. Those who say they get spammed with 'are you sure?' dialogs are either lying or have never actually used Vista for real. The dialogs appear as/when they are needed (exactly as several versions of Linux work in fact). In normal operation you don't get them very often. ... Now as to whether the value of UAC is worth the cost of upgrading..that's another matter. I'll happily accept that there's nothing in Vista that's worth paying more than ú20 for but if you're getting a new machine and it has Vista on then IMO you're better off leaving it than downgrading to XP. First intelligent pro vista post imho I still don't think it's worth it to consume more resources and slow everything down, even if on a new machine that's only a tiny amount. I think the assumption that everyone will be running Vista soon is premature. Their service pack is going to have to be a big change. - - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - - If you think I'm awesome, say BOOO BOOO!! - Ductoris Neat look what I found - Kreul Hey, my marbles
CyberGh0st Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2008.01.17 17:01:00 - [63] Originally by: WredStorm Hello all, I'm about to build a new computer that will be primarily for game playing. It'll probably be an Intel quadcore (I know not a lot games support multiple cores but I like to be able to play poker and fiddle around at times while also running Eve). I plan on picking up an nVidia 8800GT video card (just one, not SLI). Where I'm stuck is trying to figure out whether I want to stick with Windows XP or if I want to move to Vista (most likely the Home Premium edition as I don't see anything in the Ultimate version that I'd really need). My questions are: 1) Does one have to be running Vista in order to use the premium graphics in Eve? 2) Will Eve run okay on the 64 bit version of Vista? 3) Is there a difference between the retail vs. system builder (OEM) versions of Vista other than the fact that the OEM version has different licensing and support (e.g.: do they have all the same drivers, etc.)? 4) If you have personal experience with both operating systems, which would you recommend for a gaming computer? Thanks for any help/insights, WredStorm Okay first of all, don't listen to all the Vista haters, it has it's problems ( mainly too much security restrictions ), but overall the OS itself is pretty solid. Now on to your questions : 1. You don't need Vista for the premium graphics content. 2. Normally EVE will run fine on the Windows Vista 64 bit version 3. There is no difference between OEM and full versions, only pricing. 4. ATM, if you have to choose, I would pick Windows XP, however, you can normally not buy it anymore in OEM version. I hope you still have your old XP lying around, just use that one. What I want to add is that it is a good idea to run a Dual boot system with Windows XP and Windows Vista 64bit Premium The 2 main reasons to have Vista are : 1. It works with more RAM ( only the 64bit editions ! ), XP is limited to 4GB minus the ram on your graphics card ( for example 512MB ) = 3,5GB, minus 256MB for various other resources = 3,25GB of RAM. Vista Premium supports 16GB ram, Vista Ultimate 128GB RAM 2. It is the only OS that supports DirectX 10, since you are buying a DirectX 10 graphics card it would be nice to actually run DirectX 10 games. Downsides to Vista : - Security too strict ( but there are ways around that most of the time ) - It uses approximatly 512Mb more RAM then XP, IE : ATM if you want max performance with EVE you need 1GB, under Vista you would need 1,5GB. However Medium-high quality RAM is not very expensive these days, I recommend 2 packs of 2x1GB Corsair XMS2 DHX RAM with 4-4-4-12 timings ( 4GB Total ), excellent value for money and they got the sweet looking DHX cooling :p ( Same kind as the top quality but very expensive Dominator range ) Greetz CyberGh0st aka Cyberwiz aka Mentakh Active @ EvE Online Retired @ Bors DAoC / Atlantic UO / Sunstrider WoW / Valcyn SWG / Snowbourn LOTRO / Planetside / Entropia / Lineage / Guildwars
Faye Valerii Caldari Exeunt Omnes	Posted - 2008.01.17 17:11:00 - [64] We're definitely sticking to XP for a few years yet. I'll admit the new tools are useful in some scenario's, mostly within smaller companies. But in my environment, with many proprietary apps, the sharepoint/vista problems, and the fact our network is fully locked down ( .1x auth ) and all portables ending up in a separate firewalled VLAN ... Vista doesn't seem like a good deal. We might look at the new server, but we'll first have to see how it pans out the coming year. And like I said, many companies won't go over to Vista until the eternal file copy bug is resolved. Imo it's a true business-critical bug. And it's not fixed in beta sp1. Originally by: Psym0n Edited by: Psym0n on 17/01/2008 15:25:02 Vista is not as bad as people make it out to be, providing you have hardware made in the pasy 2-3 years, there is minimal problems. If you buy from good manufactureres, drivers are provided on there sites, or if you are intelligent you buy from the same designer or manufacturer. Personally i have an EVGA nForce motherboard, an EVGA nVidia graphics card. The only drivers i ever need when i format my PC are nVidia and nVidia. I dont mind downloading 2 sets of drivers. Vista recognises nForce RAID, 32bit and 64bit. If you purchase webcams from Microsoft, Sound cards from Creative / nVidia you shouldnt have any problems. People are scared of change, and unfortunately there are a lot of hidden benefits to Vista that people dont see, apart form "omg, the start bar is different!". Originally by: Faye Valerii Vista is already semi-dead. Why ? Because businesses aren't upgrading to it. Right now, the general feeling in a lot of places is to stick with xp and server2k3, and wait for the next windows. Vista has far to many business-critical bugs, like the infamous eternal file copy bug. I'll admit Vista is more secure, but in a business environment this is not an advantage, as security is provided on the LAN/WAN level. And if you use a decent browser like Opera, stay away from illegal sites and don't mindlessly open every outlook attachment you see, you'll never get a virus anyway. I am migrating the business i work for over to Vista in July, i allready have a test enviroment with Vista clients, and even a RC1 Server 2008, which makes a fantastic Windows Deployment Server, has changed IAS into a fantastic Network Policy Server and even now allows "health validation" so if someone comes into my network with a laptop that has viruses, they cant join the network untill they clean up. I can understand the scare that large scale businesses with there in-house software applications will be having, but this only really affects pharmacutical and industrial sector companies, who most are still running 2000 anyway, as it "does the job" in there closed enviroment. New server technologies are a very good tool for network managers, and once people start using them they will see that eventually they will have to move to the more simpler tools. Everyone can say "blah blah mac linux" but as i run a windows network, its a good way forward.
Dirtee Girl Omega Enterprises Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2008.01.17 17:17:00 - [65] blah blah blah but anyways look stay with xp - skip vista - ms next os should be better remmeber always skip an os with ms rule of thumb 95b-98se-xp-? thats how to work it . * *
Turin Caldari Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2008.01.17 17:39:00 - [66] Originally by: Dirtee Girl blah blah blah but anyways look stay with xp - skip vista - ms next os should be better remmeber always skip an os with ms rule of thumb 95b-98se-xp-? thats how to work it . Thats really horrible advice. The only one worth skipping so far was ME. ME was awefull. _________________________________
Montague Zooma Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.01.17 18:01:00 - [67] XP SP2 was when that OS really became worthwhile. It'll probably be the same way with Vista. For those worried about buying a new PC with XP, remember that Microsoft supports its operating systems for five years after the last service pack...and XP is due to get SP3 this year. So there's plenty of life left in XP.
Turin Caldari Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2008.01.17 18:27:00 - [68] WTB Dx10 for XP... oh ya... wait. Thats not gonna happen. The bottom line is this. If you are a gamer. Vista is the future. XP is the past. Get with it. I dont think MS will ever release DX10 for XP. Someone might hack it out and release it, but odds are they will be sued into oblivion, and I dont want third party patchs to my OS not released by the makers. Sorry. Not to mention Vista is just a better OS than XP. _________________________________
Dirtee Girl Omega Enterprises Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2008.01.17 18:49:00 - [69] Originally by: Turin Not to mention Vista is just a better OS than XP. thats why so many vista users switch back because the awesomeness of vista is so overwhelming that they cant handle it or why some manufacturers are no offering the option to buy a new pc with xp loaded instead of vista because its too awesome ... really * *
Ghaelsto Kakram	Posted - 2008.01.17 19:28:00 - [70] Asking a bunch of nerds which OS would be best. Smart, really smart. If you wanna try Vista you could install it on a new harddrive and keep the old one if don't like Vista.
Anndy Caldari Praetorian BlackGuard	Posted - 2008.01.17 19:54:00 - [71] currently i have 2 desktops running XP pro and i have a laptop running Vista Home Premium honestly theres not really any huge changes that i've seen between them except some extra features and a new look a lot of people will say vista is crap dont get it, stay with xp because xp is like god and bla bla bla i dont mind it myself, it takes a bit longer to boot up then XP and it gets a bit annoying sometimes with all the pop ups asking you to allow or deny access whenever you install anything or open certain programs/files that you could make a mistake with and screw up your windows install RAM use is a bit of an issue, when i first got my laptop it had 1GB of ram and vista was using roughly 800MB just when booting up then most of the rest of my ram was being used by my video card while their arnt a lot of DX10 games out today that number is going up and it wont be long before all new games need DX10 also if i remember right CCP plans to release a DX10 client so you may want vista just for that in all if you do decide to go with visa you need atleast 2GB of ram but i would suggest 4GB if possible also if you have enough room you could always just have an install of both XP and Vista which is what i hear a lot of people have been doing
Andrue Amarr	Posted - 2008.01.17 19:56:00 - [72] Originally by: Ghaelsto Kakram Asking a bunch of nerds which OS would be best. Smart, really smart. If you wanna try Vista you could install it on a new harddrive and keep the old one if don't like Vista. Yah. Vista is really easy to install. Could be a bit expensive buyng a copy on the off-chance though. Only thing I'd say to a Vista Virgin is not to run away when you first encounter the UI. Several of the changes seem weird if not downright repulsive but you do get used to them and miss them when you go back to XP. Buttons with hyperlink captions struck me as stupid when I first saw it but now I think it's an excellent idea. The only one I'm still not keen on are the buttons with no border (ironically you get a couple during installation). Until you move the mouse cursor over them there's no way to tell they are a button. -- (Battle hardened industrialist) [Brackley, UK] My budgie can say "ploppy bottom". You have been warned.

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.