AMD gives another reason for Vista

[DaMulta]

Some of the CrossfireX details leaked over on Tom's . Looks like you will be able to mix any cards (38xx's and the x2)for a 2/3/4 gpu setup. The bad, funny, or good thing about this is that it will work in Vista, but not XP. They note that XP may not be worthy for a redo of drivers for it to work, but I think it will come later for XP with high hopes.

 

[sendkeys]

Vista is worthless junk. bad news

 

[AddSub]

Another reason from AMD? There were others?

 

[sendkeys]

Other like. If you buy a new dell laptop with vista pre-installed they don't make xp drivers if you try to install it. Or your new printer doesnt' have xp drivers. Or when games start coming out only in directx10..

They will make us upgrade I hate them for it.

 

[kenkickr]

Vista is worthless junk. bad news

Why is Vista junk? I honestly love Vista over XP because

1: I am glad to see a OS that can actually use the ram you put in your system instead of it only coming into use for games or apps

2: DirectX 10 is a very nice feature and yes it does tax modern graphics cards but I would rather see cards have to work for the price I pay for them instead of being able to do 1000fps when my eyes can only see up to 60 and its the same damn graphics from 5years ago.

3: XP media Center was a huge joke. If you think Vista is so bad with it's media center abilities then try out XPMCE.

Performance wise, after several windows updates, vista is almost on par with XP and I have tested this both with XP and Vista on my RAID setup from a clean install.

 

[happita]

Another reason from AMD? There were others?

 

[sendkeys]

Why is Vista junk? I honestly love Vista over XP because

1: I am glad to see a OS that can actually use the ram you put in your system instead of it only coming into use for games or apps

2: DirectX 10 is a very nice feature and yes it does tax modern graphics cards but I would rather see cards have to work for the price I pay for them instead of being able to do 1000fps when my eyes can only see up to 60 and its the same damn graphics from 5years ago.

3: XP media Center was a huge joke. If you think Vista is so bad with it's media center abilities then try out XPMCE.

Performance wise, after several windows updates, vista is almost on par with XP and I have tested this both with XP and Vista on my RAID setup from a clean install.

The only reasons for vista is reasons they made up. There still is no reason they couldnt have made for xp. Directx for xp shouldn't be a problem.

Vista uses the ram but doesn't make anything faster lol

Ya all the media junk from windows has sucked for the last 10 years. Heck open source software in most cases is better.

See i really hate the point that if you install vista and do nothing it's slower. No matter what everything you do will be a few percent slower.
They had a lot of good ideas.
Instant Search sounds great but its not really that "instant".
SuperFetch again sounds cool but doesnt' really work.
ReadyBoost sounds super cool but doesn't help much if not making some slower.



All i wanted in a new os was a faster more stable system with directx10 I can get away with using vista i just have to remove half the services and turn off all the eye candy.

 

[newtekie1]

Vista is still slower than XP, noticeably slower, but I have to say it is growing on me after a recent switch. I just don't like it because I haven't figured out all the ins and outs of it like I have with XP, but that will come with time.

Honestly, most of the people that say Vista is junk have probably never used it for any reasonable amount of time and are just bashing it because it is something new they fear.

The only reasons for vista are reasons they made up. There still is no reason they couldnt have made directx for xp. Vista uses the ram but doesn't make anything faster lol Ya all the media just from windows stinks from the last 10 years. Heck open source software in most cases is better. See i really hate the point that if you install vista and do nothing it's slower. No matter what everything you do will be a few percent slower.
They had a lot of good ideas.
Instant Search sounds great but its not really that "instant".
SuperFetch again sounds cool but doesnt' really work.
ReadyBoost sounds super cool but doesn't help much if not making some slower.



All i wanted in a new os was a faster more stable system with directx10

Actually there are several technical reasons why DX10 won't work with XP. Microsoft released all the technical details behind it a long time ago, and after reading it, it all makes sense to me. There really was no way for Microsoft to incorporate DX10 into XP. Anyone that says there is no reason DX10 can't work with XP needs to do more research. Yes, it is most likely technically possible. However, is isn't a viable thing. Microsoft can't spend huge amounts of money trying to find a way to get DX10 to work with XP when XP isn't going to be making them money much longer, the benefits don't outweight the costs.

There are a lot of inovative things in Vista, some of them apply more to some people than others, and a lot of them are just there because they needed to include them to get the common consumer to buy the thing.

You are the minority, most don't want a faster more stable OS with DX10. Most want to be wowed by eye candy, anyone that has had to deal with the public buying computers will tell you that.

Instant Seach was just put in to play to compete with OSX.
Readyboost was designed for people with 512MB of RAM, it is useless to most others.

 

[sendkeys]

Only reasons they can't make directx10 for xp is they don't want to make it work Directx is low level it doesn't even really talk to the system.I'm not saying the could use the same code or anything like that. It would require two diffent programs but that isn't anything new.They can do anything they want.

You got to remember if you make dirextx only for vista it starts making all there other software only for vista. There by requiring updates for them and vista. Do you also think there is no way they couldn't remove media center and ie haha ?

 

[MadCow]

Only reasons they can't make directx10 for xp is they don't want to make it work Directx is low level it doesn't even really talk to the system. They can do anything they want. You got to remember if you make dirextx only for vista it starts making all there other software only for vista. There by requiring updates for them and vista. Do you also think there is no way they couldn't remove media center and ie haha ?

They reworked the whole graphics layer for Vista, which is why directx 10 works. Sure you could add that as an update for xo, but it'll be a waste of time and money. Remember, all microsoft wants is money, adding directx 10 to xp will cost them money.

I tried vista, and started hating it 2 days later. I've had it for a total of 4 days and it's already performing like crap and crashing. Back to XP for me.

 

[DaMulta]

Another reason from AMD? There were others?

Dx10.1

 

[xmountainxlionx]

i had vista running at 500mb ram before i opened firefox, with the aero and glass looks. i like vista

 

[von kain]

Triple Sli Will Work On Xp???

 

[Kreij]

Here is my out-of-the-box to present experience with Vista.

I built my rig from scratch (see specs) and was a little leary about using Vista, but I thought, "What the heck, Let's try it."

1) Vista loaded easier than any version of XP I have ever used. Every single component in my rig was recognized and worked immediately. Even for RAID, I did not have to do the annoying "press F6 and insert floppy". Granted, the drivers were not the latest, but everything worked and it was a simple thing to update the drivers.
2) Every single crash that I have experience with Vista (which I can count on one hand) were all driver related. It's not MS's fault for spotty drivers, they gave all of the companies plenty of notice to create stable Vista drivers.
3) Superfetch works perfectly. Apps that I use regularly are available almost instantaneously. Yes, the hard disk is being accessed regularly, but so what? I don't buy hardware for it to sit there and mock me for spending the money while it takes a vacation.
4) I don't need ReadyBoost, I have 4GB of RAM.
5) All the included features of Ultimate are great for me. Everything works to my satisfaction and beyond.
6) I have yet to find an XP app that does not work on Vista.

Downsides :
1) The UAC and Driver Signing checks were a nuisance, but easily shut off. No more grief.

So there you have my humble opinion. I tried Vista, it works well for me.
I will most likely soon move to Vista 64 bit, but I will never go back to XP. Vista has just become too warm and comfortable.

 

[imperialreign]

I've worked with Vista on my father's computer, and not too keen on the setup, TBH - personally, I can't quite hold that against Vista, as it is a new OS, and things have been changed from XP (with M$, I don't expect the next OS to be a near carbon copy of it's predecessor).

Although, the #1 biggest reason I have yet to install Vista, revolves around it's interface with audio hardware, and the exclusision of DirectSound and hardware acceleration. I'd really like to see MS revert this with an update down the road (at least give users the option of the update or not), but seeing as how it has to do with the OS kernel, I don't expect to ever see a fix for it on MS' side, and until Creative have managed to release Vista drivers that allow for full functionality of their cards in Vista, I don't intend to upgrade.

I'd also prefer to wait until SP1 before I even give Vista a "test-drive".



Although, if CrossfireX only functions in Vista, I might have to reconsider my stance

 

[candle_86]

Vista is still slower than XP, noticeably slower, but I have to say it is growing on me after a recent switch. I just don't like it because I haven't figured out all the ins and outs of it like I have with XP, but that will come with time.

Honestly, most of the people that say Vista is junk have probably never used it for any reasonable amount of time and are just bashing it because it is something new they fear.



Actually there are several technical reasons why DX10 won't work with XP. Microsoft released all the technical details behind it a long time ago, and after reading it, it all makes sense to me. There really was no way for Microsoft to incorporate DX10 into XP. Anyone that says there is no reason DX10 can't work with XP needs to do more research. Yes, it is most likely technically possible. However, is isn't a viable thing. Microsoft can't spend huge amounts of money trying to find a way to get DX10 to work with XP when XP isn't going to be making them money much longer, the benefits don't outweight the costs.

There are a lot of inovative things in Vista, some of them apply more to some people than others, and a lot of them are just there because they needed to include them to get the common consumer to buy the thing.

You are the minority, most don't want a faster more stable OS with DX10. Most want to be wowed by eye candy, anyone that has had to deal with the public buying computers will tell you that.

Instant Seach was just put in to play to compete with OSX.
Readyboost was designed for people with 512MB of RAM, it is useless to most others.

excatly, DX10 is a total rebuild of DirectX that incorparates the drive model also, and it access hardware diffrent also. You can port DX10 to XP but the cost is great and it will work diffrent for sure.

 

[Kreij]

It's never a "bad" idea to wait for the first service pack for an OS (that goes for any OS, not just MS). Usually that is the stance I take, but this time I took the risk. Glad I did. I really like the OS and what it can do for me.

Not everyone will find Vista great. It depends what they are doing. Most people on this board whine about the reduction in framerates on Vista gaming, but I don't care about frame rates. What I care about is a good gaming experience, and I am happy with the way my games perform in Vista. I don't really care if I lose a couple of FPS, as long as the overall experience is satisfactory. I am not a hard core gamer, and the features of Vista make up for a minor loss of gmaing FPS.

Creative was so far behind in their Vista driver implimentations. They had problems from day one and still seem to be slow on getting everything working.

I use the integrated 7.1 sound on my mobo and it works just fine.

 

[Lillebror]

Actualy, dx10 could work in xp.. Cause nVidia didnt want to make some changes, so Microsoft had to make dx10 worse than it should have ben! Its something about the memory.. Can't exactly remember what.

 

[imperialreign]

Creative was so far behind in their Vista driver implimentations. They had problems from day one and still seem to be slow on getting everything working.

I use the integrated 7.1 sound on my mobo and it works just fine.

True - but Creative's issue has been releasing drivers that allow the OS to make use of the hardware so that it will function correctly. But, because of how different the OS kernel is to XP, Creative literally had to go back to the drwaring board for the Vista drivers, as the X-Fi hardware was partially designed with how XP communicates with the card. I have to give Creative credit, though, on just how much they've focused on Vista drivers and complaints - all driver releases over the last year (except for a couple of beta drivers) have all been Vista only; their Xp drivers have taken a back seat. Plus, how quickly they keep adding on to the ALchemy drivers, too. But, Creative doesn't release drivers every month, though - it's usually once a quarter to bi-annually, which really sucks for those hoping the next update will resolve some issue.

But, TBH, I've kinda gotten the feeling that something must've gone down between MS and Creative behind the scenes - Creative isn't usually that late with driver releases for a new OS, and they're not usually that unstable, either. Creative was one of the few companies that had extremelly dodgy drivers when Vista rolled out. Although, I think Creative will be able to get everything working in the near future - we'll see.

 

[MilkyWay]

well isnt directx 10 sort of built into vista
now days with people having 4gb of ram and higher vista isnt a problem and no excuse ddr2 is so damn cheap now
okay games run faster on xp but you cant get direct x 10
vista look nicer and feels easier to use
if you have the internet everything installs fine

i dont really care about ati graphics anymore i jumped to a 8800gt coz it was the same price as the 3870

btw i have a amd system i just think i need a new cpu this x2 4600+ was good but isnt good for friggin games

 

[Kreij]

You are correct. Creative had to do some ... er ... "creative" driver redesign in order to get everything working with Vista. But like all of the other hardware manufacturers they had plenty of notice about the kernel changes.

Anyway, I have always like Creative's products. They make excellent, inexpesive sound cards. I don't use one anymore because I just have a 2.1 speaker system, but I was always impressed with their products.

I too, am sure that Creative works closely with MS. I am just not sure why when Vista was released their drivers were not just dodgy, they were absolute crap. The wailing and gnashing of teeth by Creative owners on message boards was stunning.

I like ATI's model. Release a driver update once a month (approx). Any more is to leave people behind (and baffled by the selection), any less is to leave people pulling out their hair.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[imperialreign]

You are correct. Creative had to do some ... er ... "creative" driver redesign in order to get everything working with Vista. But like all of the other hardware manufacturers they had plenty of notice about the kernel changes.

Anyway, I have always like Creative's products. They make excellent, inexpesive sound cards. I don't use one anymore because I just have a 2.1 speaker system, but I was always impressed with their products.

I too, am sure that Creative works closely with MS. I am just not sure why when Vista was released their drivers were not just dodgy, they were absolute crap. The wailing and gnashing of teeth by Creative owners on message boards was stunning.

I like ATI's model. Release a driver update once a month (approx). Any more is to leave people behind (and baffled by the selection), any less is to leave people pulling out their hair.

Just my 2 cents.

+1

Like I said, though, I had a feeling on a possible behind the scenes disagreement between MS and Creative - but, on the other hand, the new OS kernel affected audio hardware more than anything else. In hindsight, I think Creative probably had the heaviest workload in writting new drivers for use with Vista, partly due to the drastic change in the OS, and partly due to current hardware that was designed for the XP OS. Look at how stable the Audigy drivers have been in Vista, for comparison. But MS' approach to the audio capabilities of Vista, I think, was very . . . shaddy - as much as the OS was designed to simplify things to promote an overall faster and more responsive OS, they hacked up one area that really wasn't contributing to any OS bottlenecks. There is support, though, that works around these issue, OpenAL.

DirectSound3D on Windows Vista

With Microsoft's decision to remove the audio hardware layer in Windows Vista, legacy DirectSound 3D games will no longer use hardware 3D algorithms for audio spatialization. Instead they will have to rely upon the new Microsoft software mixer that is built into Windows Vista. This new software mixer will give the users basic audio support for their old Direct Sound games but since it has no hardware layer, all EAX® effects will be lost, and no individual per-voice processing can be performed using dedicated hardware processing.

EAX has become the de facto standard for real-time effects processing. It has been incorporated in hundreds of games and has become the method of choice for game developers wanting to add interactive environment effects to their titles. Some of the best selling games of all time use the EAX extensions to DirectSound 5.0 and beyond, including Warcraft3, Diablo2, World of Warcraft, Half Life, Ghost Recon, F.E.A.R. and many others. Under Windows Vista, these games will be losing the hardware support that came as standard under the previous Windows Operating Systems, and will no longer provide real-time interactive effects, making them sound empty and lifeless by comparison to the way they sound on Windows XP.

In some cases, where a game specifically looks for a hardware audio path, it may even fall back to plain stereo output. This will be a very different landscape for 3D audio than the one that both Creative Labs and Aureal Technologies® pioneered 8 years ago. Both companies dedicated hardware power to rendering increasing numbers of 3D voices, with each voice taking full advantage of HRTF (Head Related Transfer Function) technology, wave tracing and other advanced processing. With the native Windows Vista audio APIs, all this advanced, hardware-based 3D audio processing will be inaccessible. Instead, basic mapping to a generic speaker placement scheme will be employed, and all interactive processing and rendering will be dependent on the host CPU. While it is true that CPUs continue to get faster, the Vista audio architecture intentionally simplifies things, such that the potential processing load for multiple 3D voices is limited. Inevitably there is a tradeoff. This will be especially true for gamers that have come to depend on the kind of high-end 3D audio experience available from products like the SoundBlaster X-Fi, with its advanced headphone 3D audio processing and dedicated hardware DSP effects. For gamers this would be the most noticeable loss in Windows Vista, and it would be a definite step backwards for PC gaming audio if developers only had the option of using native Windows Vista audio APIs. However, they do have a legitimate, proven alternative in OpenAL.

Anyhow, I found Creative owner's response to be ridiculous, too - not only over th Vista drivers, but also over the small "quirks" that crop up with the X-Fi cards now and then. Most of the piddly issues that people complain about are what we consider to just be common sense, and the more serious issues have been resolved or there are known workarounds. but, if you visit the Creative Forums, it's the same questions over and over again :shadedshu. The X-Fi lineup is entirelly new architeture compared to the Audigy and everything prior - hell the card has a dedicated processor on it, not a chipset . . .

I've also used Creative's products for years, going all the way back to a Sound Blaster 2.1, and have never had any serious complaints with their cards. Any issues were usually easy to resolve, and I've never had to deal with Creative's tech support until this last year (over something I knew they couldn't fix, too).


Agreed, also, on the driver release model. I love ATI's schedule. We know that it's either the 2nd or 3rd week of the month, and they rarely release beta drivers to the general public unless there's a big issue they're trying to address. I wish more companies would follow this routine, also.

 

[Kreij]

I'm with you on the drivers.
I don't care if each driver release make a stunning new improvement, as long as it addresses issues.
When a company has a set date (normally) for driver releases, the customers know that they don't have to do extensive searching for fixes. If the drivers do not take care of the issue you are seeing, you can usually let them know through their support site, and it gets put in their "check this out" list.

Trying to keep up with Nvidia drivers is maddening. There is a beta this, or beta that, constantly. I don't want betas, I want the released, tested, working drivers.

ATI has, in my book, made driver updates a regular and painless process. Granted, the newest driver may not address what you want, but at least you know when to look.

Same with Microsoft. Say what you want about them, but their updates are regular and predictable.

I do not know how apple updates the MAC OS, as I don't have any users on my network.
Anyone care to comment on that?