cause were bored and have nothing better to do while waiting for episode 5 to come out.... at least that is why i am here (oh, and we do not want season 2 to suck so we are giving them lots of stupid, off the wall ideas)
Then by Season 3 (if there is one) a jump to DX10 and most likely half the XP users may have jumped to Vista.
That'd still be losing half the possible audience though. Plus, it'd be giving into Microsoft's efforts to 'force' everyone onto Vista, whether they want to or not.
I'm definitely not moving to Vista for at least another 2 or 3 years, if at all, and I know quite a few people who think the same.
EDIT: Just looked at Numble's link. Sam and Max will probably never need photorealistic graphics at any time, being a cartoony game. There doesn't seem to be any need for DX10, and DX8's working well enough for it at the minute.
Sweet Somalian sodas swimming southward for a salami sandwich soaked in soy sauce! :eek:
That second Flight Simulator X screen was right on par with Crysis! Maybe I WILL get a DX10 card and Vista after all... I don't judge games by graphics, but.... jumping Jimmy Stewart in a French beret, that looks nice!
my new laptop has DX10 and vista in it, and they both look great............. but at what cost (although up untill now i had no idea what it was capable of)
my old computer has a few years under its belt and it plays most games just as well as my laptop.............. so right now, DX10 is complete overkill and out of the reach of most of the public and game companies right now
also there is nothing i hate more than me being one of the few and only people able to play a game just because of what i am running, i like to shoot the breeze and talk game to others (case in point, me being here to talk to all you lovely people) because talking about games is almost as fun as playing them
so even though i can play almost any game on the market............. i still prefer the polished look of DX8 and DX9 games because it takes most companies a while to get the nack of a system............ look at the fit and polish of telltales games............. compare bone 1&2 and csi:3 to some of their new projects like sam and max and csi hard evidence, what a diffrence a year can make..... and they were made with the same base system (DirectX 8)
also there is nothing i hate more than me being one of the few and only people able to play a game just because of what i am running, i like to shoot the breeze and talk game to others (case in point, me being here to talk to all you lovely people) because talking about games is almost as fun as playing them
That's one thing I always hated about being a couple years obsolete... not being able to join in on most gaming conversations. And like you said, I hate falling in love with a game and not being able to talk about it with anyone because they either can't run it or it's too obscure or niche oriented.
See, I figure that by the time a couple service packs for Vista have materialized, they'll have worked out most of the kinks, maybe even taken out most of the DRM stuff because it was so widely hated.
I still don't really like the direction its resource usage is taking, but it's moving slower than the hardware, soo...
Look, I'm not really a big fan of Vista. But I really have faith that it won't go over well, so they'll fix some of the problems that people perceive...
Two words that are making me think about Vista: Alan Wake. Damn you, Microsoft! For now I'm sticking with XP. I'll wait for at least a year and see what happens. At least all the drivers will be available then.
Problem is, when my 4 year old computer bites the dust I won't be able to buy a PC without Vistas. Mac is the only choice, unless Dell really really start selling Linux Pcs.
How much you ready to spend to play video games?
You will need a DX10 video card..better get reay to go get a loan at the bank.
PNY GeForce XLR8 8800 GTS 640MB GDDR3 PCI Express SLI Video Card and a Coolmax Green Power 1000-Watt SATA-SLI Ready Power Supply.
Price:
$749.99
Less Rebate:
- $180.00
Final Price: $569.99*
That's really a good rule of thumb for Microsoft's operating systems...
Also, so far there are so few games available for DirectX 10. In a year or so there probably will be a lot more games one can play that takes advantage of DirectX 10, but so far it's pretty much pointless to make the move just to be able to play those few games that are out already.
Now over to something else. While we are talking about DirectX 10. I have always wondered. If I buy a graphics card that supports DirectX 10, won't that mean all the new features on that card(compared to the last card they released that supported DirectX 9) will only be used by DirectX 10 based games?
What I am asking in short is: is there a point for me to buy a graphics card that supports DirectX 10 if I never will upgrade to Vista(except for that these cards often have more memory, probably more than a DirectX 9 based game will ever use)? I am considering buying a great GeForce 7 card, since I have no plans to get Vista for at least 4 or more years. But if there are great advantages still to buying a graphics card that supports DirectX 10, even when using the card in XP, I might consider a cheap GeForce 8 instead.
It seems to me like all the new features they annonunced on GeForce 8 was stuff DirectX 10 only could take advantage of.
Those are practically the only pictures I find(from a fast google search only though, could be more pictures of currently released games for DirectX 10) of games running on DirectX 10. Until I can see some shoots from some different games and hopefully also some live action recordings from games, I feel it's too little information to make a judgement on. For all I know, it could be they have just turned up all settings while running the game on DirectX 10, and turned them down when they ran the game on DirectX 9.
The picture in the jungle with the light, I am pretty sure I saw effects like that in Oblivion too, so I think the same kind of lightening would be possible to do on DirectX 9 too. Also, the sun through the sky on the flight simulator image, the sky looks almost modified on the DirectX 9 image - in the area where one can see the light in the DirectX 10 shoot. Then it's just the water left, really, which I don't really care that much about. The water looks quiet on one of the pictures(more correct for lake), while the water is moving on the other, which would be more correct for a ocean.
I read in the comment section there that those "screenshots" are not real screenshots, they are "estimated renders" In other words, they're fake and not from in-game.
How much you ready to spend to play video games?
You will need a DX10 video card..better get reay to go get a loan at the bank.
PNY GeForce XLR8 8800 GTS 640MB GDDR3 PCI Express SLI Video Card and a Coolmax Green Power 1000-Watt SATA-SLI Ready Power Supply.
Price:
$749.99
Less Rebate:
- $180.00
Final Price: $569.99*
There are a lot of pre-owned 8800s on the market though, from people who realized they hate Vista, or they just don't see any DX10 games on the horizon that they want. So it should be fairly easy to get an 8800 for considerably less than that.
Mac is the only choice, unless Dell really really start selling Linux Pcs.
You can always install Linux on an existing PC. Most of the Linux distros are free anyway, so you don't have to look out for Linux PCs.
Still, it is best to stick with Windows and use Linux as a hobby operating system until you get the hang of it, and get all the DirectX support and Windows emulation running on it.
I've never had a Mac, so I can't really comment on them, but if they were more upgradable, I'd definitely be using one now.
You can always install Linux on an existing PC. Most of the Linux distros are free anyway, so you don't have to look out for Linux PCs.
Still, it is best to stick with Windows and use Linux as a hobby operating system until you get the hang of it, and get all the DirectX support and Windows emulation running on it.
I've never had a Mac, so I can't really comment on them, but if they were more upgradable, I'd definitely be using one now.
You can always install Linux on an existing PC. Most of the Linux distros are free anyway, so you don't have to look out for Linux PCs.
Still, it is best to stick with Windows and use Linux as a hobby operating system until you get the hang of it, and get all the DirectX support and Windows emulation running on it.
Yep, even now, when I know linux well enough to use it on a regular basis, I still jump over to Windows once in a while. Also, I use Windows for most games(except ScummVM and DOSBox games). I have used the Windows operating systems so much in my life that it just feels like home, even though I prefer doing certain things in linux. Windows is an old friend. Not a good friend, but an old friend. How to do stuff in Windows just happens, I don't even need to think for a split second where to find this or that.
Also, from my experience most of those I know who made an instant switch. Like: Now I'm going to delete Windows, and install Linux instead. They ended up going back, because of the simple reason that: when you are used to knowing were everything is, you feel frustrated when you suddenly have to do stuff in a completly new way, even if the new way is easier or faster. But if they had done it in a way that they could get a little more apt to Linux every time they used it, then I'm sure they would have found it's great potential. I mean, even Windows 95 was hard to learn when I first got it. But instead of throwing it away and saying "Nope, I'll just stick to DOS and Win 3.11" I started exploring it and playing around with it. Many re-installs later, I knew a lot of ways to fix problems and locating programs were second nature.
Even though mac probably is still easier to use than Linux, I would say that a mac is easier to use than Windows too. That's my answer to why Microsoft tries to move closer to the look of mac with every release, because they want people to find it easy to use. I remember my uncle had an old mac. I could use it without knowing the first thing about a mac. Everything I needed was just exactly where I would look for it.
I've never had a Mac, so I can't really comment on them, but if they were more upgradable, I'd definitely be using one now.
I would too. Also, I got a friend who always brags about how awesome mac is, and if you just mention something you think is better with the PC than a mac or his favorite console, he gets all upset and leaves in a fist of anger. That makes me not want to use it out of spike also, they are still quite expensive compared with what I spend when I upgrade/rebuild my PCs, so I don't want to spend that much money on a platform I have practically nil games for. When I want stability and all that I have my MEPIS and VL-Linux. I have used linux for so many years that I can navigate around it as fast, and often even faster, than in Windows. It takes some getting used to, though.
I have one computer that has Xandros Linux on it and like it a lot. came with crossover wine so can run a lot of windows programs on it.
I have the older one and have heard the newer one runs even more.
But the computer won't run it do to the old card it has.
Like I said before I'd only ever get a Mac over a PC if you could actually open it up and add and remove hardware (which would pretty much turn it into a Mac-running PC, but nevermind).
Yep, even now, when I know linux well enough to use it on a regular basis, I still jump over to Windows once in a while. Also, I use Windows for most games(except ScummVM and DOSBox games).
Yeah, that's my chief problem with Linux: Compatibility. I've been using it for a couple of months now, and although there's good open source alternatives to a lot of the things I use on Windows, running games is what lets it down.
I feel a bit bad that I haven't booted up Linux in the last few weeks, but that's down to me suddenly getting back into gaming (after buying Sam and Max, I went out and got the new Broken Sword and a few other games too), so Windows is my only option to play them.
I did find something to let me run DirectX on Linux, but it was that badly documented, I didn't even know how to install it =/.
As soon as someone makes a Linux distro which will let me run all the things I do on Windows, but having all the benefits of Linux at the same time, I'd never go back to Gates' money-spinner.
Like I said before I'd only ever get a Mac over a PC if you could actually open it up and add and remove hardware (which would pretty much turn it into a Mac-running PC, but nevermind).
Get yourself a mac pro and you can do that to your heart's content. You can swap some of the components in other Mac models, but generally just memory and, in the laptops, the wireless card. In the pro, you can do pretty much whatever you want though, because it's a tower.
I read in the comment section there that those "screenshots" are not real screenshots, they are "estimated renders" In other words, they're fake and not from in-game.
Well then... :rolleyes:
I still will probably switch to Vista eventually, as long as they work out some of the kinks that are currently plaguing it.
Did I mention Vista uses about 256Mb of memory for just the Auro interface, and it's always loaded, even if you turn it off? I wouldn't use Vista if I was PAID $250! Or even $2,500.
Exactly. I hate that! My power is going to be used for games, not for running some pretty interface. Which is why I'm sticking with XP. I'd get linux but being a hardcore gamer i'd get bored pretty easily, because most games don't support linux >.<;
I'm only going to buy the next windows OS if it doesn't use so much damn memory for running the interface. All I want is a light and easy to use OS that leaves plenty of operating room on the system for my totally awesome but power hungry games
I've never had a Mac, so I can't really comment on them, but if they were more upgradable, I'd definitely be using one now
The thing about macs (in my experience) is they don't really need to be upgradable - they last longer. The main reason people upgrade PC's is to keep up-to-date... which tends to be in a rediculous 6 month cycle (probably a bit of an exageration...). Where a PC will last 1 year before it starts showing its age and needing an upgrade a mac will last 2 or 3.
The thing about macs (in my experience) is they don't really need to be upgradable - they last longer. The main reason people upgrade PC's is to keep up-to-date... which tends to be in a rediculous 6 month cycle (probably a bit of an exageration...). Where a PC will last 1 year before it starts showing its age and needing an upgrade a mac will last 2 or 3.
Amen. I remain confident that my two year old G4 ibook will run Leopard when it ships later this year, which isn't something I'd necessarily be sure of with my PC and new Windows releases.
I thought the whole deal with using extra RAM was so that the programs you open most often open faster..... when the system is idling, the Comp uses the RAM to do other things, but once you open a program, it moves the needed RAM to that new program.
Why have 1 GIG of RAM if the comp only ever uses a small amount? What's the big deal with having the comp use 256Mb of RAM if it will open programs I need faster?
That's because one can play so few games that require a lot of the PC, there At least the main reason I have been regulary upgrading my PC(not as far as often as the example you gave, though) since 2001, was because there was this or that game that didn't wor. In fact, I have never experienced having to buy a new PC because the new operating system no longer was able to run on my old PC. The only case I can think of where I upgraded something to fix problems with a OS running slowly, was when I had to upgrade my PC from 128 mb ram to 256 mb ram, to be able to run Windows 2000 smoothly. Also, I haven't experienced having to replace something on my PC because of hardware failure in oh so many years. I mean, I got harddrives from 2001 that still run(in my pc), and a soundblaster live! card I bought for the first PC I built.
The thing is that, if your operating system is already using a lot of your memory on other things, then it will take some time before the operating system detects that the game you run or whatever requires more memory. When it detects that, it has to move the ram around and page some parts of it to a pagefile or write changes to disc, or find out what it can discard. All that takes processor power and memory, which can make the game run slower for periods. Now, if the memory was already free, then the operating system could just allocate it directly in memory without worrying about paging anything out at all.
Another problem is with static things in memory, which can't be swaped out. I would guess Aero is static in memory, and even if a game requests more memory, the operating system won't be able to page it out(which again leaves the game with less memory to play with).
Comments
Maybe a jump to DX9?
Then by Season 3 (if there is one) a jump to DX10 and most likely half the XP users may have jumped to Vista.
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/pcs/directx-9-vs-directx-10-worth-upgrading-to-vista-for-243099.php
I'm definitely not moving to Vista for at least another 2 or 3 years, if at all, and I know quite a few people who think the same.
EDIT: Just looked at Numble's link. Sam and Max will probably never need photorealistic graphics at any time, being a cartoony game. There doesn't seem to be any need for DX10, and DX8's working well enough for it at the minute.
Photorealism is RIGHT!
:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
Sweet Somalian sodas swimming southward for a salami sandwich soaked in soy sauce! :eek:
That second Flight Simulator X screen was right on par with Crysis! Maybe I WILL get a DX10 card and Vista after all... I don't judge games by graphics, but.... jumping Jimmy Stewart in a French beret, that looks nice!
That's really a good rule of thumb for Microsoft's operating systems...
my old computer has a few years under its belt and it plays most games just as well as my laptop.............. so right now, DX10 is complete overkill and out of the reach of most of the public and game companies right now
also there is nothing i hate more than me being one of the few and only people able to play a game just because of what i am running, i like to shoot the breeze and talk game to others (case in point, me being here to talk to all you lovely people) because talking about games is almost as fun as playing them
so even though i can play almost any game on the market............. i still prefer the polished look of DX8 and DX9 games because it takes most companies a while to get the nack of a system............ look at the fit and polish of telltales games............. compare bone 1&2 and csi:3 to some of their new projects like sam and max and csi hard evidence, what a diffrence a year can make..... and they were made with the same base system (DirectX 8)
That's one thing I always hated about being a couple years obsolete... not being able to join in on most gaming conversations. And like you said, I hate falling in love with a game and not being able to talk about it with anyone because they either can't run it or it's too obscure or niche oriented.
I still don't really like the direction its resource usage is taking, but it's moving slower than the hardware, soo...
If they don't, then I'll re-think.
Problem is, when my 4 year old computer bites the dust I won't be able to buy a PC without Vistas. Mac is the only choice, unless Dell really really start selling Linux Pcs.
You will need a DX10 video card..better get reay to go get a loan at the bank.
PNY GeForce XLR8 8800 GTS 640MB GDDR3 PCI Express SLI Video Card and a Coolmax Green Power 1000-Watt SATA-SLI Ready Power Supply.
Price:
$749.99
Less Rebate:
- $180.00
Final Price:
$569.99*
Also, so far there are so few games available for DirectX 10. In a year or so there probably will be a lot more games one can play that takes advantage of DirectX 10, but so far it's pretty much pointless to make the move just to be able to play those few games that are out already.
Now over to something else. While we are talking about DirectX 10. I have always wondered. If I buy a graphics card that supports DirectX 10, won't that mean all the new features on that card(compared to the last card they released that supported DirectX 9) will only be used by DirectX 10 based games?
What I am asking in short is: is there a point for me to buy a graphics card that supports DirectX 10 if I never will upgrade to Vista(except for that these cards often have more memory, probably more than a DirectX 9 based game will ever use)? I am considering buying a great GeForce 7 card, since I have no plans to get Vista for at least 4 or more years. But if there are great advantages still to buying a graphics card that supports DirectX 10, even when using the card in XP, I might consider a cheap GeForce 8 instead.
It seems to me like all the new features they annonunced on GeForce 8 was stuff DirectX 10 only could take advantage of.
Those are practically the only pictures I find(from a fast google search only though, could be more pictures of currently released games for DirectX 10) of games running on DirectX 10. Until I can see some shoots from some different games and hopefully also some live action recordings from games, I feel it's too little information to make a judgement on. For all I know, it could be they have just turned up all settings while running the game on DirectX 10, and turned them down when they ran the game on DirectX 9.
The picture in the jungle with the light, I am pretty sure I saw effects like that in Oblivion too, so I think the same kind of lightening would be possible to do on DirectX 9 too. Also, the sun through the sky on the flight simulator image, the sky looks almost modified on the DirectX 9 image - in the area where one can see the light in the DirectX 10 shoot. Then it's just the water left, really, which I don't really care that much about. The water looks quiet on one of the pictures(more correct for lake), while the water is moving on the other, which would be more correct for a ocean.
There are a lot of pre-owned 8800s on the market though, from people who realized they hate Vista, or they just don't see any DX10 games on the horizon that they want. So it should be fairly easy to get an 8800 for considerably less than that.
Still, it is best to stick with Windows and use Linux as a hobby operating system until you get the hang of it, and get all the DirectX support and Windows emulation running on it.
I've never had a Mac, so I can't really comment on them, but if they were more upgradable, I'd definitely be using one now.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/
Yep, even now, when I know linux well enough to use it on a regular basis, I still jump over to Windows once in a while. Also, I use Windows for most games(except ScummVM and DOSBox games). I have used the Windows operating systems so much in my life that it just feels like home, even though I prefer doing certain things in linux. Windows is an old friend. Not a good friend, but an old friend. How to do stuff in Windows just happens, I don't even need to think for a split second where to find this or that.
Also, from my experience most of those I know who made an instant switch. Like: Now I'm going to delete Windows, and install Linux instead. They ended up going back, because of the simple reason that: when you are used to knowing were everything is, you feel frustrated when you suddenly have to do stuff in a completly new way, even if the new way is easier or faster. But if they had done it in a way that they could get a little more apt to Linux every time they used it, then I'm sure they would have found it's great potential. I mean, even Windows 95 was hard to learn when I first got it. But instead of throwing it away and saying "Nope, I'll just stick to DOS and Win 3.11" I started exploring it and playing around with it. Many re-installs later, I knew a lot of ways to fix problems and locating programs were second nature.
Even though mac probably is still easier to use than Linux, I would say that a mac is easier to use than Windows too. That's my answer to why Microsoft tries to move closer to the look of mac with every release, because they want people to find it easy to use. I remember my uncle had an old mac. I could use it without knowing the first thing about a mac. Everything I needed was just exactly where I would look for it.
I would too. Also, I got a friend who always brags about how awesome mac is, and if you just mention something you think is better with the PC than a mac or his favorite console, he gets all upset and leaves in a fist of anger. That makes me not want to use it out of spike
I have the older one and have heard the newer one runs even more.
But the computer won't run it do to the old card it has.
Like I said before I'd only ever get a Mac over a PC if you could actually open it up and add and remove hardware (which would pretty much turn it into a Mac-running PC, but nevermind).
Yeah, that's my chief problem with Linux: Compatibility. I've been using it for a couple of months now, and although there's good open source alternatives to a lot of the things I use on Windows, running games is what lets it down.
I feel a bit bad that I haven't booted up Linux in the last few weeks, but that's down to me suddenly getting back into gaming (after buying Sam and Max, I went out and got the new Broken Sword and a few other games too), so Windows is my only option to play them.
I did find something to let me run DirectX on Linux, but it was that badly documented, I didn't even know how to install it =/.
As soon as someone makes a Linux distro which will let me run all the things I do on Windows, but having all the benefits of Linux at the same time, I'd never go back to Gates' money-spinner.
Get yourself a mac pro and you can do that to your heart's content. You can swap some of the components in other Mac models, but generally just memory and, in the laptops, the wireless card. In the pro, you can do pretty much whatever you want though, because it's a tower.
Well then... :rolleyes:
I still will probably switch to Vista eventually, as long as they work out some of the kinks that are currently plaguing it.
:rolleyes:
Exactly. I hate that! My power is going to be used for games, not for running some pretty interface. Which is why I'm sticking with XP. I'd get linux but being a hardcore gamer i'd get bored pretty easily, because most games don't support linux >.<;
I'm only going to buy the next windows OS if it doesn't use so much damn memory for running the interface. All I want is a light and easy to use OS that leaves plenty of operating room on the system for my totally awesome but power hungry games
I run vista...
Maybe I'm moronically over-optimistic, but I have faith they'll end up having to do something about the abominable amount of RAM Vista uses...
I hope, anyway.
I wouldn't hold your breath. :rolleyes:
Amen. I remain confident that my two year old G4 ibook will run Leopard when it ships later this year, which isn't something I'd necessarily be sure of with my PC and new Windows releases.
Why have 1 GIG of RAM if the comp only ever uses a small amount? What's the big deal with having the comp use 256Mb of RAM if it will open programs I need faster?
That's because one can play so few games that require a lot of the PC, there
@Sp0tted
The thing is that, if your operating system is already using a lot of your memory on other things, then it will take some time before the operating system detects that the game you run or whatever requires more memory. When it detects that, it has to move the ram around and page some parts of it to a pagefile or write changes to disc, or find out what it can discard. All that takes processor power and memory, which can make the game run slower for periods. Now, if the memory was already free, then the operating system could just allocate it directly in memory without worrying about paging anything out at all.
Another problem is with static things in memory, which can't be swaped out. I would guess Aero is static in memory, and even if a game requests more memory, the operating system won't be able to page it out(which again leaves the game with less memory to play with).
It uses ABSURD amounts of RAM just idling, but as a result, things that would be RAM-intensive in XP require little or no extra RAM in Vista...