OOTP2007 on Vista - Page 2

APujols5 · 02-26-2007, 11:54 PM

Dodgerblue

I'd suggest this one instead.....
http://www.officemax.com/max/solutio...OID=1611553975

If you live near an OfficeMax? they sell it for $649 and I saw it on sale week before last for like $599.
The reason I like this model better is it has an ATI Video chipset instead of the Intel Video Chipset. It will perform better and use less of your system RAM. Plus without a standalone Video card, I'd consider getting a 1GB ram chip for it right away if there's one on sale.

Eriqjaffe

With as cheap as a new PC or laptop costs, that's insane. I have had probably 8-10 PCs since 2002 alone

Edit:
Dodger, I just changed my link because I think I grabbed the wrong model off of Newegg

NomarHits400 · 02-26-2007, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by APujols5

No one and I truly mean NO ONE should keep a PC for 6-8 Years. escpecially not with as cheap as computers are these days

Speak for yourself- how on earth you can purport to decide this for absolutely everyone is beyond ridiculous.

APujols5 · 02-27-2007, 12:01 AM

When you can replace your PC every couple Years for the 500-700 price point it's crazy to keep an old outdated PC as your main machine

ifspuds · 02-27-2007, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by APujols5

When you can replace your PC every couple Years for the 500-700 price point it's crazy to keep an old outdated PC as your main machine

Do you understand that not everyone either a) has $500-$700 to spend on a computer every two years or b) wants to spend that money on a computer every two years? That's why making a blanket statement that NO ONE should keep a computer more than two years is ridiculous.

The Wolf · 02-27-2007, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by APujols5

No one and I truly mean NO ONE with any money should keep a PC for 6-8 Years. escpecially not with as cheap as computers are these days

Fixed that for ya.

APujols5 · 02-27-2007, 12:36 AM

If you can't come up with 20 bucks a month to put aside for a new PC, then You need a new job

Plus I actually said No one should keep a PC 6-8 Years. Not sure where you got the 2 Year idea at?

APujols5 · 02-27-2007, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Fixed that for ya.

There's no real reason to fix that... that's less than 10 bucks a month. doesn't take a real high paying job to save 10 bucks a month does it?

Craig Scarborough · 02-27-2007, 01:07 AM

I suppose others may just have different priorities than you do, Apujols. To tell anyone how to spend their money is ridiculous and a losing battle.

There was some nice testing done by the third-party site tomshardware.com between XP and Vista. Here are their conclusions:

"Overall, applications performed as expected, or executed slightly slower than under Windows XP.

There are some programs that showed deeply disappointing performance. Unreal Tournament 2004 and the professional graphics benchmarking suite SPECviewperf 9.03 suffered heavily from the lack of support for the OpenGL graphics library under Windows Vista. This is something we expected, and we clearly advise against replacing Windows XP with Windows Vista if you need to run professional graphics applications.

We are disappointed that CPU-intensive applications such as video transcoding with XviD (DVD to XviD MPEG4) or the MainConcept H.264 Encoder performed 18% to nearly 24% slower in our standard benchmark scenarios. Both benchmarks finished much quicker under Windows XP. There aren't newer versions available, and we don't see immediate solutions to this issue.

Our hopes that Vista might be able to speed up applications are gone. First tests with 64-bit editions result in numbers similar to our 32-bit results, and we believe it's safe to say that users looking for more raw performance will be disappointed with Vista. Vista is the better Windows, because it behaves better, because it looks better and because it feels better. But it cannot perform better than Windows XP.

Vista runs considerably more services and thus has to spend somewhat more resources on itself. Indexing, connectivity and usability don't come for free.

There is a lot of CPU performance available today! We've got really fast dual core processors, and even faster quad cores will hit the market by the middle of the year. Even though you will lose application performance by upgrading to Vista, today's hardware is much faster than yesterday's, and tomorrow's processors will clearly leap even further ahead.

No new Windows release has been able to offer more application performance than its predecessor. "

So, while your daughter's PC runs as smoothly as a baby's bottom, I think your arguments towards better performance and "accuracy" are specious at best.

APujols5 · 02-27-2007, 01:10 AM

Tomshardware is very very biased against Vista as well. SO that has to be taken with a grain of salt.

dodgerblue88 · 02-27-2007, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig Scarborough

...suffered heavily from the lack of support for the OpenGL graphics library under Windows Vista. This is something we expected, and we clearly advise against replacing Windows XP with Windows Vista if you need to run professional graphics applications.

Wow Markus mentioned that OpenGL is needed to use the facegen feature. So does this mean that us Vista users will be denied of facegen?!!

Craig Scarborough · 02-27-2007, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by APujols5

Tomshardware is very very biased against Vista as well. SO that has to be taken with a grain of salt.

Really?! - it actually recommends upgrading, because today's PCs are must faster than yesterday's. There's also an article on the site touting that even the oldest of systems can run Vista.

Man, I hate biased benchmarks.

Craig Scarborough · 02-27-2007, 01:34 AM

dola

Then again, at least I brought some benchmarks to the table. I'm not aware where one can download "smooth as a baby's bottom" benchmark.

APujols5 · 02-27-2007, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dodgerblue88

Wow Markus mentioned that OpenGL is needed to use the facegen feature. So does this mean that us Vista users will be denied of facegen?!!

For me it was quite the opposite. I never was able to get facegen to work with my ATI 512mb card in XP. but Yet as soon as I downloaded the Vista drivers for the same card, Facegen worked like a champ

APujols5 · 02-27-2007, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig Scarborough

dola

Then again, at least I brought some benchmarks to the table. I'm not aware where one can download "smooth as a baby's bottom" benchmark.

well sorry i am not going to go wake up my 10 yrold daughter to do a benchmark test on her PC. Not to mention I have nothing to compare it to, because the machine never had XP on it.

Mike D · 02-27-2007, 02:29 AM

Or you just have other priorities. Listen, if someone has a computer that does what they need it to do for 6-8 years, why the hell should you be telling them how to spend their money. Think how crazy you are sounding right now? If I could get a computer to last me 6-8 years and work perfectly fine for what I need it to do, then I just saved myself almost $2,000.

And besides, don't you work closely to Microsoft in the real world? Who's biased now?

Dargone · 02-27-2007, 03:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig Scarborough

Really?! - it actually recommends upgrading, because today's PCs are must faster than yesterday's. There's also an article on the site touting that even the oldest of systems can run Vista.

Man, I hate biased benchmarks.

Yup. The Tom's Hardware articles are spot on in my opinion. For what it's worth this is coming from someone who builds a "beast" every couple of years. Just built my new one-680i, dual 8800GTXs, C2D OC@3.6, so I'm certainly a power user. No reason to upgrade to Vista right now, once the DX10 games start hitting the market then I'll upgrade...

The Wolf · 02-27-2007, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by APujols5

There's no real reason to fix that... that's less than 10 bucks a month. doesn't take a real high paying job to save 10 bucks a month does it?

Well, you know, that depends on what you assume or don't assume about their lives. Are they in college and just barely paying their tuition? Are they newly married and saving to get a house or perhaps just scraping by? Do they have kids? If so, do they have a lot of kids? Are they disabled or retired? Are they living on a fixed income? Do they or their spouse or kids have expensive medical problems, or perhaps no medical insurance at all? Do they have a sick or disabled spouse or parents? Are they supporting their parents, perhaps in hospitals or retirement homes?

Assumptions. They'll kill you every time.

Marc Duffy · 02-27-2007, 08:52 AM

Guys, lets quit this discussion please.

Nu-Bru · 02-27-2007, 08:54 AM

Wow, this thread went to hell in a handbasket (I'm not referring directly to your post, Wolf).

APujols5, you would do well to read some of the posts earlier this month from people for whom the PRICE OF THIS GAME AND A 10 OR 20% DISCOUNT are highly significant. Blanket assumptions and statements are not advisable in a public forum IMHO.

EDIT: Sorry Marc, your post was just before this one.

Vris · 02-27-2007, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marc Duffy

Guys, lets quit this discussion please.

Can the initial question be answered, as well as the question about FaceGen not working on Vista machines?

02-26-2007, 11:54 PM	#21 (permalink)
APujols5 Banned Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: CP Indiana Posts: 1,667 Warnings: 3	Dodgerblue I'd suggest this one instead..... http://www.officemax.com/max/solutio...OID=1611553975 If you live near an OfficeMax? they sell it for $649 and I saw it on sale week before last for like $599. The reason I like this model better is it has an ATI Video chipset instead of the Intel Video Chipset. It will perform better and use less of your system RAM. Plus without a standalone Video card, I'd consider getting a 1GB ram chip for it right away if there's one on sale. Eriqjaffe With as cheap as a new PC or laptop costs, that's insane. I have had probably 8-10 PCs since 2002 alone Edit: Dodger, I just changed my link because I think I grabbed the wrong model off of Newegg Last edited by APujols5 : 02-26-2007 at 11:59 PM.

02-27-2007, 02:29 AM	#35 (permalink)
Mike D Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: In a van, down by the river Posts: 2,241	Or you just have other priorities. Listen, if someone has a computer that does what they need it to do for 6-8 years, why the hell should you be telling them how to spend their money. Think how crazy you are sounding right now? If I could get a computer to last me 6-8 years and work perfectly fine for what I need it to do, then I just saved myself almost $2,000. And besides, don't you work closely to Microsoft in the real world? Who's biased now? __________________ Sometimes the best laid plans will never get you laid the way you plan.

02-27-2007, 08:54 AM	#39 (permalink)
Nu-Bru Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 44	Wow, this thread went to hell in a handbasket (I'm not referring directly to your post, Wolf). APujols5, you would do well to read some of the posts earlier this month from people for whom the PRICE OF THIS GAME AND A 10 OR 20% DISCOUNT are highly significant. Blanket assumptions and statements are not advisable in a public forum IMHO. EDIT: Sorry Marc, your post was just before this one. Last edited by Nu-Bru : 02-27-2007 at 08:55 AM.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

02-27-2007, 12:01 AM	#23 (permalink)
APujols5 Banned Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: CP Indiana Posts: 1,667 Warnings: 3	When you can replace your PC every couple Years for the 500-700 price point it's crazy to keep an old outdated PC as your main machine

02-27-2007, 12:36 AM	#26 (permalink)
APujols5 Banned Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: CP Indiana Posts: 1,667 Warnings: 3	If you can't come up with 20 bucks a month to put aside for a new PC, then You need a new job Plus I actually said No one should keep a PC 6-8 Years. Not sure where you got the 2 Year idea at?

02-27-2007, 01:07 AM	#28 (permalink)
Craig Scarborough OOTP Developments Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 398	I suppose others may just have different priorities than you do, Apujols. To tell anyone how to spend their money is ridiculous and a losing battle. There was some nice testing done by the third-party site tomshardware.com between XP and Vista. Here are their conclusions: "Overall, applications performed as expected, or executed slightly slower than under Windows XP. There are some programs that showed deeply disappointing performance. Unreal Tournament 2004 and the professional graphics benchmarking suite SPECviewperf 9.03 suffered heavily from the lack of support for the OpenGL graphics library under Windows Vista. This is something we expected, and we clearly advise against replacing Windows XP with Windows Vista if you need to run professional graphics applications. We are disappointed that CPU-intensive applications such as video transcoding with XviD (DVD to XviD MPEG4) or the MainConcept H.264 Encoder performed 18% to nearly 24% slower in our standard benchmark scenarios. Both benchmarks finished much quicker under Windows XP. There aren't newer versions available, and we don't see immediate solutions to this issue. Our hopes that Vista might be able to speed up applications are gone. First tests with 64-bit editions result in numbers similar to our 32-bit results, and we believe it's safe to say that users looking for more raw performance will be disappointed with Vista. Vista is the better Windows, because it behaves better, because it looks better and because it feels better. But it cannot perform better than Windows XP. Vista runs considerably more services and thus has to spend somewhat more resources on itself. Indexing, connectivity and usability don't come for free. There is a lot of CPU performance available today! We've got really fast dual core processors, and even faster quad cores will hit the market by the middle of the year. Even though you will lose application performance by upgrading to Vista, today's hardware is much faster than yesterday's, and tomorrow's processors will clearly leap even further ahead. No new Windows release has been able to offer more application performance than its predecessor. " So, while your daughter's PC runs as smoothly as a baby's bottom, I think your arguments towards better performance and "accuracy" are specious at best.

02-27-2007, 01:10 AM	#29 (permalink)
APujols5 Banned Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: CP Indiana Posts: 1,667 Warnings: 3	Tomshardware is very very biased against Vista as well. SO that has to be taken with a grain of salt.

02-27-2007, 01:34 AM	#32 (permalink)
Craig Scarborough OOTP Developments Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 398	dola Then again, at least I brought some benchmarks to the table. I'm not aware where one can download "smooth as a baby's bottom" benchmark.

02-27-2007, 08:52 AM	#38 (permalink)
Marc Duffy SI Marketing Wizard Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Islington, London Posts: 4,743	Guys, lets quit this discussion please.