J0EBUSHID0 Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 ok... I, by now means, have a cutting-edge system, but it does exceed the recomended requirements, according to that "yougamers" thingy.. though that's not totally reliable. I have XP pro SP3 running on my one SATA HD with my regular GTAIV install, as well as all my 3D Art programs, and a ton of other crap. I recently installed a second, 500GB SATA drive that's clean, and I spent the day installing Windows 7 and GTAIV onto it. My system CPU: AMD Opteron 175 Dual Core, OC'd (slightly) to 2.4 Ghz 2 GB DDR Ram XFX Nvidia G-force 8800 GT PnP Audio (my sound card recent;y went tits up ) I ran a bench test in each OS without any commandline prompts or anything like that, and this is the result ---------------------------------- Windows XP Statistics Average FPS: 25.87 Duration: 37.31 sec CPU Usage: 85% System memory usage: 83% Video memory usage: 97% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: Medium Render Quality: High View Distance: 25 Detail Distance: 37 Hardware Microsoft Windows XP Professional Service Pack 3 Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT Video Driver version: 185.20 Audio Adapter: PnP Audio Device Dual Core AMD Opteron Processor 175 File ID: benchmark.cli ------------------------ Windows 7 Statistics Average FPS: 19.52 Duration: 37.20 sec CPU Usage: 96% System memory usage: 91% Video memory usage: 92% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1280 x 1024 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: Medium Render Quality: High View Distance: 25 Detail Distance: 37 Hardware Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT Video Driver version: 181.20 Audio Adapter: Speakers (USB Audio Device) Dual Core AMD Opteron Processor 175 File ID: Benchmark.cli Conclusion... I'll be sticking with XP until either MS patches W7, or R* patches GTAIV... wither way.. I'll be playing Mass Effect now.. I'm done with this sh*t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noVa Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 (edited) Of course it is outdoing the others, wise ass. So did Vista when it was pre-beta. It wasn't riddled with useless junk then. Same as XP. I know it's petty but... No it f*cking never, not at any single point of Longhorns pre-build pre beta/beta stages did it appear remotely faster than XP. The only amusment was all the f*cknuts that bought the final release insisting its superior performance superior memory management (is that what you call inefficient use of memory and continual disk thrashing these days?)and the usual obsolete XP comments. Some of these drones somehow still exist today. Never a bigger pile of sh*t to have the morons gorging themselves on even the Emperor would have said he was naked at that con, it reminds me of Johnny Rotten's "Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?", hang on, I see parallels here, but cannae quite put ma' finger on it... That is wrong. And if I test my dual boot xp and vista, vista is faster. Why? Because the current computer architecture is built for Vista, not XP. In fact, many new computers won't run XP. At least, not with the full features of the chipsets due to drivers only being written for Vista. Mind you I am a professional computer tech. I would also like to add that the reason why I blew up b/c of the warez post was that I know what it costs to have your software stolen. And Microsoft has been pretty secure about the pre-beta of Win7 until ... well in about 12 hours. Additionally ... Microsoft has always said that they would optimize their software from pre beta to beta to beta to rc.... it always end up being bloated with unnecessary stuff reducing the time devs have to optimize. Finally. Win 7 will not be a totally new, state of the art OS. To me it reminds me a lot of Vista. Features moved, removed, new added etc... but the core, graphics, desktop etc. look like Vista. vista faster? lol don't get me started. we know win 7 isn't a totally new os, its vista mk2 seeing as vista was such a horrific failure. i've used all three and i wouldn't say win 7 is perfect but its already leaps and bounds above vista for general use (but as you say whether this is true by the rc who knows), lol they havn't been to careful pre beta's have been available for yonks blaim the msdn subscribers etc for leaking them (and it costs them nothing at the moment to have it pirated? theres no harm done yet) and tbh if i do use it ill be using the same grey windows 95-style start bar i've always used, i'm not interested in being able to see a frosted version of another window through the window im draging about (if i wanted pretty i'd be a mac fanboy). one major plus point in my eyes, atm though is that it doesn't ask you if you want to install everything a second time, i like an os to need as little optimisation on my end as possible and vista that was just not possible without spending ours trundling through turning crap off, same with xp to a lesser extent. win 7 i've installed and i've switched off the aero bollocks changed a few permissions on folders and i'm done ther os already feels responsive enough for me not to need to optimise it further - and thats what i want. Edited January 9, 2009 by noVa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elBATCHo Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 vista with SP2 is fast as sh*ttttttttt for me. instantly opens anything i want and isntantly loads all my files and pics and everything. big step over SP1 i tried windows 7 6956, it was just as fast, way nicer looking, LOVE IT. but it had problems. My Computer and Documents would show up blank, i guess others have that problem. thats it. i tried GRID on it, but GRID already runs super insanely wel on my PC so i couldnt tell a differenve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noVa Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 vista with SP2 is fast as sh*ttttttttt for me. instantly opens anything i want and isntantly loads all my files and pics and everything. big step over SP1 i tried windows 7 6956, it was just as fast, way nicer looking, LOVE IT. but it had problems. My Computer and Documents would show up blank, i guess others have that problem. thats it. i tried GRID on it, but GRID already runs super insanely wel on my PC so i couldnt tell a differenve. will have to test sp2 for vista meant to be an improvement for gamers, but tbh i'd wish they'd just let it die lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afrianto Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 Which driver should I use on windows 7 ? Vista driver or XP driver ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pixelated Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 I have to question the OP's statement and I'd like to see a picture of some benchmarks. While Windows 7 is definitely a bit snappier than Vista it's not like the savior of GTA IV. At least I didn't notice an extra 10FPS. If I get 40FPS on any OS that would be for a very short period unless I'm playing with everything at a minimum. Anyways Windows 7 too buggy for me to use everyday, I already switched back my boot config to boot up Vista at default again. The bottom line is as much as we all want that magic bullet to fix GTA IV it's going to need to come from either Rockstar in the form of a large performance patch that allows the "untying" of the Shadows, water, reflections, etc from the resolution, or we're going to have to wait a year or two before hardware really increases in power to run this game at 60FPS. Sure a GTX280 and an i7 will probably come close now but i7 has not even gone mainstream yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J0EBUSHID0 Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 I'm running in W7 with compatibility mode set to "windows 2000" because when I set it to XP or Vista, I get the error telling me I need their respective service packs. Just wondering if it's possible to install Vista SP1 on W7, and if it is, should I? And is there any solution to the random pauses and missing texture problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZaCkOX Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Of course it is outdoing the others, wise ass. So did Vista when it was pre-beta. It wasn't riddled with useless junk then. Same as XP. I know it's petty but... No it f*cking never, not at any single point of Longhorns pre-build pre beta/beta stages did it appear remotely faster than XP. The only amusment was all the f*cknuts that bought the final release insisting its superior performance superior memory management (is that what you call inefficient use of memory and continual disk thrashing these days?)and the usual obsolete XP comments. Some of these drones somehow still exist today. Never a bigger pile of sh*t to have the morons gorging themselves on even the Emperor would have said he was naked at that con, it reminds me of Johnny Rotten's "Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?", hang on, I see parallels here, but cannae quite put ma' finger on it... That is wrong. And if I test my dual boot xp and vista, vista is faster. Why? Because the current computer architecture is built for Vista, not XP. In fact, many new computers won't run XP. At least, not with the full features of the chipsets due to drivers only being written for Vista. Mind you I am a professional computer tech. I would also like to add that the reason why I blew up b/c of the warez post was that I know what it costs to have your software stolen. And Microsoft has been pretty secure about the pre-beta of Win7 until ... well in about 12 hours. Additionally ... Microsoft has always said that they would optimize their software from pre beta to beta to beta to rc.... it always end up being bloated with unnecessary stuff reducing the time devs have to optimize. Finally. Win 7 will not be a totally new, state of the art OS. To me it reminds me a lot of Vista. Features moved, removed, new added etc... but the core, graphics, desktop etc. look like Vista. I wouldn't want you as my computer tech. Vista is much slower than XP, and if for some reason your Vista is beating XP then you got some extra bloatwire on your XP. Vista is a slow piece of sh*t, doesn't matter what service pack you have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TruXter Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 (edited) Disk thrashing? What kind of bullsh*t is that? another i.t. guy here. of the 40 computers I maintain at my job everyday, I have yet to see an issue with Vista. but the ten computers there that have xp, just randomly bog down as if they are getting a service pack. I think you read to many f.u.d. (Fear Uncertainty & doubt) threads in forums and really have no first hand experience. With every new operating system, there are groups who do this. Just seems this generation of whiners get heard. Guess because you are less violent than previous generations. and just plain annoying. some 5-8 year old operating system created back when dual core was just a theory. yeah that's the way to go. hey while you are testing antiques, break out win 95, it only took a 100mghz processor to run it and 32 mb ram. I bet you will be FAST!!! Evolve or die. Edited January 10, 2009 by TruXter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZaCkOX Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Disk thrashing?What kind of bullsh*t is that? another i.t. guy here. of the 40 computers I maintain at my job everyday, I have yet to see an issue with Vista. but the ten computers there that have xp, just randomly bog down as if they are getting a service pack. I think you read to many f.u.d. (Fear Uncertainty & doubt) threads in forums and really have no first hand experience. With every new operating system, there are groups who do this. Just seems this generation of whiners get heard. Guess because you are less violent than previous generations. and just plain annoying. some 5-8 year old operating system created back when dual core was just a theory. yeah that's the way to go. hey while you are testing antiques, break out win 95, it only took a 100mghz processor to run it and 32 mb ram. I bet you will be FAST!!! Evolve or die. I hope you aren't replying to me, because your 40 I can take and multiple by the number of computers you didn't fix. And no, I know my sh*t. Others think they know their sh*t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TruXter Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Ok, what actual piece of software causes the "thrashing"? and don't say vista. i want to hear what piece of software causes it. and what line of code is incorrect. If you know your sh*t and tell me you do. prove it. or stfu newb. FUD is probably older than you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FazZfilmz Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Its sad to see so many negative words against Vista. I've been using XP for years, both setting up, installations and upgrades etc, but when Vista finally came out, it was badly released with terrible driver support (M$'s fault). Still... a few months later, it started to get better and with the 64bit version, things made sence. OK, so XP x64 was another option, but when I tried Vista with so many different set ups, it made much more sence to go with Vista x64. The sound (which is one of my fields) p**s**d me off for some time, but soon got round that and now with the likes of the Asus Xonar HD range, it's far better. OK, so all this works on XP x64 too, but with little support on XP now and lesser from now on, it seems silly to go backwards. I know, just because it's not supported, doesn't mean it's no good, just... difficult in the long run. I too am looking forward to Windows 7, but by the time that becomes official, my rather dated PC is going to be even more dated and probably not fully usable on Windows 7, let alone future Adobe CS's and gaming. IMHO Vista is great and would not recommend XP unless you PC can't run Vista. Vista not only requires more computing power, but in-return will run powefully. Like Mac machines, they also require serious power and again in return equal results. Mac's are another story though (which is a forever argument) as for me they just don't do all I need, but usually enough for most basic users. If XP works better for you, fine keep to it, but simply sitting there not having a clue how to build a working OS that enables you to create some serious master pieces and saying it's crap... is not excatly constructive or helpful. For so many of the systems we use (casual and/or serious) Vista always comes up tops over XP and now with Adobe CS4 (with the major 64x updates), Carbon Coder etc it beats all the creative applications on the Mac, let alone gaiming, which Mac always seem to be 2 years behind on. The future is Windows 7 of course, but I'm pretty sure most people we're having this same conversation about XP when they we're still using Windows'98se. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZaCkOX Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Ok, what actual piece of software causes the "thrashing"? and don't say vista. i want to hear what piece of software causes it.and what line of code is incorrect. If you know your sh*t and tell me you do. prove it. or stfu newb. FUD is probably older than you. If you call yourself a techy, then you would of said Vista has problems in and out. The fact you said you worked with 40 computers and didn't have problems with it but with windows XP you did... can tell me a lot 1.) Your lying or the 40+ computers were all the same build and didn't require anything that Vista has problems with. 2.) You don't touch a variety of builds. 3.) You don't know XP or Vista very well. .... and if I want to continue. So who wins? 1 me, 0 you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vercetti Thug Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Evolve or die. That's real mature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noVa Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Ok, what actual piece of software causes the "thrashing"? and don't say vista. i want to hear what piece of software causes it.and what line of code is incorrect. If you know your sh*t and tell me you do. prove it. or stfu newb. FUD is probably older than you. auto defrag along with the indexing service, superfetch, windows defender all thrash the disks on vista for me, vista cut performance for me in a lot of my audio apps when i was working on large projects, besides the random glitches with my soundcard that forced me to reboot to get back sound. i would like to know what company you work for that actually has vista installed on 40 pc's? i know of very few actual companies who took up vista for actual use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TruXter Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Ok, what actual piece of software causes the "thrashing"? and don't say vista. i want to hear what piece of software causes it.and what line of code is incorrect. If you know your sh*t and tell me you do. prove it. or stfu newb. FUD is probably older than you. If you call yourself a techy, then you would of said Vista has problems in and out. The fact you said you worked with 40 computers and didn't have problems with it but with windows XP you did... can tell me a lot 1.) Your lying or the 40+ computers were all the same build and didn't require anything that Vista has problems with. 2.) You don't touch a variety of builds. 3.) You don't know XP or Vista very well. .... and if I want to continue. So who wins? 1 me, 0 you. Great logic, to say that someone who disagrees with you must be lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noVa Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 IMHO Vista is great and would not recommend XP unless you PC can't run Vista. Vista not only requires more computing power, but in-return will run powefully. Like Mac machines, they also require serious power and again in return equal results. Mac's are another story though (which is a forever argument) as for me they just don't do all I need, but usually enough for most basic users. i'm pretty sure majority of major audio studios, film studios, photographers will all disagree with you hear, macs are by far the standard in audio and film industries and are not just ok for the average user, the OS is a lot more stable without as much maintenance and is pretty much the first choice for these industries. vista requires more power but gives more power back? WTF retarded statement it simply does not work like that, it requires more power so theres less power going to the applications and the applications should be the intensive part, an OS should be streamlined so it does what you need it to without negatively effecting applications run on it NOT the other way around. they require serious power? in what way? they run on the same hardware your pc does? and before the intel switch over they use power pc based chips so cannot be compaired. If XP works better for you, fine keep to it, but simply sitting there not having a clue how to build a working OS that enables you to create some serious master pieces and saying it's crap... is not excatly constructive or helpful. again pretty retarded if you actually knew what a good OS was like you'd be horrified at the sheer inefficiency of vista and xp to a lesser extent, makes me think you have no idea how to build a working OS that enables you to work efficiently. again im not completely against vista but compaired to xp it's an operating system thats meant to impress the "ooh look theres frosted clear windows look at that ! pwetty" demographic who do nothing but search the web and make a spreadsheet for middle management type stuff. not for professionals and people need to do intensive things, why do you think it was such a big flop so much so ms felt the need to force it onto people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FazZfilmz Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 I don't know 'TruXter' but I've worked as a creative freelancer with various companies over the past 5 years and I'd say most of them in the past 2 years are using Vista (mainly x64) and Mac OSX. The machine count would be on average 30 Vista based machines and slightly more Mac's. In the creative industry, many would start off with a lot of money (more mone than sence usually) but would all be kitted out with high-end gear, including whatever high-end Mac & PC's could be located. Most high-end would either come with Vista x64 or be supplied as OEM. Tiscali is one of the last companies I dealt with and they over 200 computers in the building partially supported by Farbic Tech. Tiscali had around 40 Mac OSX machines and the rest were either Vist x32 or x64 based machines. Any large firm would not even think twice when deciding what OS to purchase unless they had some seriously dated bespoke software that only worked on XP for whatever reason. M$ would of course advise this and any iT support companies would also go with this too, due to XP being out-phased. The point though, there isn't one OS for everyone, that's why their are so many choices. If I could, I'd be using the Amiga OS4, but theirs so little left on that platform, i'd be blind like most Mac users. Choice is there for us all to content with, otherwise it would truely be a sad world. If your happy with XP, then fine, but don't bible bash those who careless for it, when they have been their, done that and moved on for all good reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeBzzz Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 ok... I, by now means, have a cutting-edge system, but it does exceed the recomended requirements, according to that "yougamers" thingy.. though that's not totally reliable. I have XP pro SP3 running on my one SATA HD with my regular GTAIV install, as well as all my 3D Art programs, and a ton of other crap. I recently installed a second, 500GB SATA drive that's clean, and I spent the day installing Windows 7 and GTAIV onto it. My system CPU: AMD Opteron 175 Dual Core, OC'd (slightly) to 2.4 Ghz 2 GB DDR Ram XFX Nvidia G-force 8800 GT PnP Audio (my sound card recent;y went tits up ) I ran a bench test in each OS without any commandline prompts or anything like that, and this is the result ---------------------------------- Windows XP Statistics Average FPS: 25.87 Duration: 37.31 sec CPU Usage: 85% System memory usage: 83% Video memory usage: 97% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: Medium Render Quality: High View Distance: 25 Detail Distance: 37 Hardware Microsoft Windows XP Professional Service Pack 3 Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT Video Driver version: 185.20 Audio Adapter: PnP Audio Device Dual Core AMD Opteron Processor 175 File ID: benchmark.cli ------------------------ Windows 7 Statistics Average FPS: 19.52 Duration: 37.20 sec CPU Usage: 96% System memory usage: 91% Video memory usage: 92% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1280 x 1024 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: Medium Render Quality: High View Distance: 25 Detail Distance: 37 Hardware Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT Video Driver version: 181.20 Audio Adapter: Speakers (USB Audio Device) Dual Core AMD Opteron Processor 175 File ID: Benchmark.cli Conclusion... I'll be sticking with XP until either MS patches W7, or R* patches GTAIV... wither way.. I'll be playing Mass Effect now.. I'm done with this sh*t. Hmmmm. I may sound like an ass, but I would've liked to see this comparison run with the same drivers.... (if possible) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noVa Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 I don't know 'TruXter' but I've worked as a creative freelancer with various companies over the past 5 years and I'd say most of them in the past 2 years are using Vista (mainly x64) and Mac OSX. The machine count would be on average 30 Vista based machines and slightly more Mac's. In the creative industry, many would start off with a lot of money (more mone than sence usually) but would all be kitted out with high-end gear, including whatever high-end Mac & PC's could be located. Most high-end would either come with Vista x64 or be supplied as OEM. Tiscali is one of the last companies I dealt with and they over 200 computers in the building partially supported by Farbic Tech. Tiscali had around 40 Mac OSX machines and the rest were either Vist x32 or x64 based machines. Any large firm would not even think twice when deciding what OS to purchase unless they had some seriously dated bespoke software that only worked on XP for whatever reason. M$ would of course advise this and any iT support companies would also go with this too, due to XP being out-phased. The point though, there isn't one OS for everyone, that's why their are so many choices. If I could, I'd be using the Amiga OS4, but theirs so little left on that platform, i'd be blind like most Mac users. Choice is there for us all to content with, otherwise it would truely be a sad world. If your happy with XP, then fine, but don't bible bash those who careless for it, when they have been their, done that and moved on for all good reasons. yeh i do agree its more money than sense thing most of the time, but for audio atleast logic is pretty much an audio standard along wth pro tools and you can't get logic on any other OS so thats the main reason, my experience with working at companies that deal with vital stuff like banking etc still use windows 2000, sure they have some xp and vista machines for non vital machines people word process on or whatever but generally i've only ever encountered older OS's, for one simple reason they work, they don't need rediculous hardware and they rarely crash becuase they've been around so long nearly everythings been ironed out. i appear to be the only person left though who think an OS should be designed to have the smallest footprint possible with basic features that let me run my apps to the peak of their performance, i really could give a toss about advanced quick searches and blah blah features, i'd like it to sit there quietly and let me do my thing, which is why i don't use vista as it does non of these things. it does exist, but unfortunately linux doesn't have most of the apps i use or run games, as soon (and if) thats rectified i will be switching over to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZaCkOX Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Ok, what actual piece of software causes the "thrashing"? and don't say vista. i want to hear what piece of software causes it.and what line of code is incorrect. If you know your sh*t and tell me you do. prove it. or stfu newb. FUD is probably older than you. If you call yourself a techy, then you would of said Vista has problems in and out. The fact you said you worked with 40 computers and didn't have problems with it but with windows XP you did... can tell me a lot 1.) Your lying or the 40+ computers were all the same build and didn't require anything that Vista has problems with. 2.) You don't touch a variety of builds. 3.) You don't know XP or Vista very well. .... and if I want to continue. So who wins? 1 me, 0 you. Great logic, to say that someone who disagrees with you must be lying. Ya well greater logic is: I am right. Aren't I? Ha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grifflester Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 I hope this windows 7 (built 7000) comes with directx10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FazZfilmz Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 IMHO Vista is great and would not recommend XP unless you PC can't run Vista. Vista not only requires more computing power, but in-return will run powefully. Like Mac machines, they also require serious power and again in return equal results. Mac's are another story though (which is a forever argument) as for me they just don't do all I need, but usually enough for most basic users. i'm pretty sure majority of major audio studios, film studios, photographers will all disagree with you hear, macs are by far the standard in audio and film industries and are not just ok for the average user, the OS is a lot more stable without as much maintenance and is pretty much the first choice for these industries. vista requires more power but gives more power back? WTF retarded statement it simply does not work like that, it requires more power so theres less power going to the applications and the applications should be the intensive part, an OS should be streamlined so it does what you need it to without negatively effecting applications run on it NOT the other way around. they require serious power? in what way? they run on the same hardware your pc does? and before the intel switch over they use power pc based chips so cannot be compaired. If XP works better for you, fine keep to it, but simply sitting there not having a clue how to build a working OS that enables you to create some serious master pieces and saying it's crap... is not excatly constructive or helpful. again pretty retarded if you actually knew what a good OS was like you'd be horrified at the sheer inefficiency of vista and xp to a lesser extent, makes me think you have no idea how to build a working OS that enables you to work efficiently. again im not completely against vista but compaired to xp it's an operating system thats meant to impress the "ooh look theres frosted clear windows look at that ! pwetty" demographic who do nothing but search the web and make a spreadsheet for middle management type stuff. not for professionals and people need to do intensive things, why do you think it was such a big flop so much so ms felt the need to force it onto people. Maybe your right and I haven't a clue about any of this, but I've done pretty well setting up many companies on my knowlegde with very low-budgets too... all whom have been happy and more so, greatful how better thier work flow is. I know what you mean about streamlining and just in my experience with Vista, it just works better. I'm not really bothered about how (to great details anyway) but when compared to a very similar set up with XP, Vista works better. Most major film and audio productions (many I know well) use Mac because it's boring hardware. It's nothing like a PC due to the way you can custom build a PC so very much and only a little on a Mac. This is the only reason why it's that much more stable, because tMAc have little work to do in maintaining the OS... if everyone is pretty much the same, little work it needed. It's the same like a large office would be these days to, one main server with the software and updates, all the rest are just drones feeding off. Once machine to maintain, less hassle overal. I agree that having to give an OS more power is rather stupid, just so you can do more, but it's the failure of Vista really and hopefully, with all the power that the Vista machine have out there, Windows 7 will make a huge difference by using the machine a lot more efficently. I've tried so much in using Premiere Pro on XP x64 but it just kept giving us issues, so ended up upgrading all the machines to Vista x64 and honestly had no issues, except of course the audio issues, which I would kill M$ for, but all seem pretty fine now and for the past 6 months. I will say I'm NOT against XP at all, because Vista wasn't a huge difference on face (as you seem to judge it by) but what it does behind, works better for us... as a film and audio company. We still use Mac's a lot, especially before CS4 was finally released and which then gave PC's real A/V HD editing with also any HD hardward your have already. Mac's will always be ahead of the movie game, because of Steve Jobs, John Lasseter and George Lucas, always behind the technology and works of the majority of films, but Adobe are still keeping M$ in the game... just about. If Adobe decided to go back to the Mac OS fully again, their would be no real competition and Windows would vanish from the creative world and become a very expensive way of talking on the GTA forums... with the a few other functions of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FazZfilmz Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 I don't know 'TruXter' but I've worked as a creative freelancer with various companies over the past 5 years and I'd say most of them in the past 2 years are using Vista (mainly x64) and Mac OSX. The machine count would be on average 30 Vista based machines and slightly more Mac's. In the creative industry, many would start off with a lot of money (more mone than sence usually) but would all be kitted out with high-end gear, including whatever high-end Mac & PC's could be located. Most high-end would either come with Vista x64 or be supplied as OEM. Tiscali is one of the last companies I dealt with and they over 200 computers in the building partially supported by Farbic Tech. Tiscali had around 40 Mac OSX machines and the rest were either Vist x32 or x64 based machines. Any large firm would not even think twice when deciding what OS to purchase unless they had some seriously dated bespoke software that only worked on XP for whatever reason. M$ would of course advise this and any iT support companies would also go with this too, due to XP being out-phased. The point though, there isn't one OS for everyone, that's why their are so many choices. If I could, I'd be using the Amiga OS4, but theirs so little left on that platform, i'd be blind like most Mac users. Choice is there for us all to content with, otherwise it would truely be a sad world. If your happy with XP, then fine, but don't bible bash those who careless for it, when they have been their, done that and moved on for all good reasons. yeh i do agree its more money than sense thing most of the time, but for audio atleast logic is pretty much an audio standard along wth pro tools and you can't get logic on any other OS so thats the main reason, my experience with working at companies that deal with vital stuff like banking etc still use windows 2000, sure they have some xp and vista machines for non vital machines people word process on or whatever but generally i've only ever encountered older OS's, for one simple reason they work, they don't need rediculous hardware and they rarely crash becuase they've been around so long nearly everythings been ironed out. i appear to be the only person left though who think an OS should be designed to have the smallest footprint possible with basic features that let me run my apps to the peak of their performance, i really could give a toss about advanced quick searches and blah blah features, i'd like it to sit there quietly and let me do my thing, which is why i don't use vista as it does non of these things. it does exist, but unfortunately linux doesn't have most of the apps i use or run games, as soon (and if) thats rectified i will be switching over to that. LMAO... I love and use Linux too! I'm a huge fan for the small OS's (including Symbian & Amiga) because they try harder and pretty much cost near to nothing. I was hugely please when Asus motherboard's started coming with a basic OS inbuilt to allow internet usage, audio playback for simple audio... Windows will probably NEVER reach this status as like you say, it's filled with many other features, that are not always so helpful to all. I personally think they need to allow the user to see more of what is going on a disable/enable what he/she wants. Hiddening many of these features/burdens make many hate it, when its simple to turn them off, for an experienced user anyway. However, as much power as Vista requires, I have about (checking Task Manager) right now 156 processes running in the background the Quad core is running around 50-60% because I have Fallout 3 open on the other (secondary) screen and 70% (roughly) of the memory being used, with apps like Outlook and FireFox (using this forum and 8 other tabs open). The machine is over a year old and still able to do all this with 2 x 1920x1080 without little hassle... I never thougt I'd be doing this... however... I still can't bloody play GTA IV properly!!! For balancing, if I'm doing very little with the PC, which say is similar to now, but minus Fallout 3 running, the average usage on the Quad cores are 3-5% and the memory usage is about 50%, which 'IS' more than XP would use, but not much difference and is a better way I feel, as most of the apps I use or in the background will sit in the 'fast' access memory, ready for usage or being used and not from the HDD which would be shortening their life even more. iMHO Banks should never had started using Windows... ever! They should be using SUN OS at least or Linux otherwise! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n1k Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Yep I had the same experience, Windows 7 gameplay was so smooth first time I tried it (in comparison to Vista x64) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noVa Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 dear god i could imagine the mass confusion in banks if they started using solaris (well they may do in the reeeally important backend stuff, but then no one who doesn't know what they're doing will ever touch it i had to use a mainframe system at one of my jobs! and that was last year!) i hate solaris - thats at the other end of the scale - optimisation at the cost of usability, or atleast the version i use is. but i guess its from experience, but yeh i use 32bit xp which is a different animal from 64bit i do agree the gains you get from xp 64bit over 32bit xp are mild and certainly going from xp 64bit to vista 64bit makes sense if you need the 64bit as it is a lot better (support & in general) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 I hope this windows 7 (built 7000) comes with directx10 It comes with DirectX 11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J0EBUSHID0 Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 ok... . Hmmmm. I may sound like an ass, but I would've liked to see this comparison run with the same drivers.... (if possible) I'm downloading the 185.20 drivers for W7 now (actually, it's the vista x64 version, but should still work) W7 seems pretty cool so far, nothing to go ape-sh*t over, but it's stable and looks real purty. To answer someones previous question, yes it does come with Direct X 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nomad91 Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 From what I've heard you should be able to use Vista's integrated Partition extender to modify partition values to allow 2 different OS's. Don't take my word for it, I just did a straight up format. I have to say I am really shocked that you are getting nearly 40FPS with a AMD Athlon X2 3800+. Specially with settings you have it set to... Yea I was about to call bullsh*t on the processor Sethos where did you get that info from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J0EBUSHID0 Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Hmmmm. I may sound like an ass, but I would've liked to see this comparison run with the same drivers.... (if possible) ok.. ran the benchmark again with the 185.20 drivers on W7 and the results were about the same with a few more frames, but I ran it three times because it stalled and stuttered on the first 2 attempts, giving me an FPS at around 15. This is the result of the third test, which didn't stutter at all... Statistics Average FPS: 22.50 Duration: 37.37 sec CPU Usage: 96% System memory usage: 85% Video memory usage: 98% Graphics Settings Video Mode: 1680 x 1050 (60 Hz) Texture Quality: Medium Render Quality: High View Distance: 25 Detail Distance: 37 Hardware Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate Video Adapter: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT Video Driver version: 185.20 Audio Adapter: Speakers (USB Audio Device) Dual Core AMD Opteron Processor 175 File ID: Benchmark.cli Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now