aguywhoplaysthief on 16/6/2006 at 02:24
Can you do the old, old style start menu organization(win 98)?
I hate the XP one with a passion, and I didn't see it on the Vista website.
system shocker on 16/6/2006 at 03:15
Oblivion seems to run faster in Vista. And I really like the new Windows Movie Maker. Except I can't run it on my computer with the geforce 4200 ti. But it doesn't crash as much.
Renzatic on 16/6/2006 at 03:33
Quote Posted by aguywhoplaysthief
Can you do the old, old style start menu organization(win 98)?
Yeah, you can. It's in the start menu options.
Quote:
Oblivion seems to run faster in Vista.
That's surprising. No matter what I did, I couldn't get games in Vista to run nearly as smoothly as I could in XP. Even the new Vista-specific Forceware set didn't make a huge impact. I'm guessing Nvidia (and just about everyone else) hasn't spent alot of time optimising their drivers for DX10 yet.
system shocker on 16/6/2006 at 14:40
I did a fresh install of Oblivion:thumb:
and Cell Factor is a little awesome but I can't figure out how to do everything
I got a Radeon x600 with the vista ati drivers. And can't you people get it into your head yet that the only games that do directx 10 are the ones that are made for directx 10:tsktsk:
Renzatic on 16/6/2006 at 18:28
Quote Posted by system shocker
I got a Radeon x600 with the vista ati drivers. And can't you people get it into your head yet that the only games that do directx 10 are the ones that are made for directx 10:tsktsk:
Since DX10 supposedly cuts out alot of legacy support, you could say that all games run under it in Vista regardless of if they take advantage of it or not. So if you want a DX8 or 9 game to run as well on Vista as it did on XP, you're gonna have to have DX10 optimised drivers.
Microwave Oven on 16/6/2006 at 19:03
So far, I am quite underwhelmed by Microsoft's showing. Vista's look and feel seems a "me too!" move towards Mac's (bleh :P) and it's stability is less than XP's, with two hard reboots in less than 10 minutes on a machine that runs Linux solidly.
Vista feels like a toy, fluffy and frivolous. Not an adequate replacement for XP.
Renzatic on 16/6/2006 at 20:09
Well, it's a beta...it's bound to flake out sooner or later.
Though for the most part I do agree with you. While Vista is admittedly pretty and laid out fairly well, there aren't enough new features to justify plunking down $300 as soon as it comes out. Beyond cosmetic differences, there isn't anything here that can't be done in XP.
Maybe once WinFS comes out, provided it's speedier and more efficient than NTFS, I'll consider buying it. But for now I'll just play around with the beta and wait til MS drops XP support completely before I make the jump.
OrbWeaver on 16/6/2006 at 20:48
Quote Posted by Renzatic
Maybe once WinFS comes out, provided it's speedier and more efficient than NTFS, I'll consider buying it. But for now I'll just play around with the beta and wait til MS drops XP support completely before I make the jump.
Since WinFS is implemented on top of NTFS, rather than as a replacement, it is unlikely to be speedier or more efficient (although one hopes it will be more functional).
Renzatic on 16/6/2006 at 20:54
Is it now? That's....kinda dumb of them.
So what it boils down to is that we're gonna be paying a premium for what's basically a sexy WinXP upgrade? What have they been working on for the last few years anyway?
