[Evildave]

This article on MONOCULTURE tells you why having universally adhered to standards like Windows uber alles is a bad thing.

If everyone runs Windows XP, that's a monoculture. One virus can potentially hit them all. Antivirus is no protection if you're one the people unfortunate enough to catch it before it's noticed and an antiviruls patch propagates to all of the protected computers. The first thing a maker of malware will do is make sure his new piece of code isn't detected by anything that's currently available.

I know that the latest blights to hit Microsoft XP or Vista through an IE or Outlook exploit won't touch me. If someone makes a Red Hat RPM exploit, that won't touch me, either. Windows exploits are the most common. I'm not part of a botnet, because this software is made for 100% compatible Windows systems on Intel CPUs. Millions of hapless XP users are members of botnets, all quietly spamming each other and participating in DDOS attacks.

In the 'Linux World' you can limit users any which way you like as well. You don't need any special tools to do it that aren't already part of the OS. XP pro can be locked down easily enough without additional software as well. Make a proper 'user' account and only modify software when logged on as 'Administrator' or an account with that level of privileges, or use 'runas' to elevate a given application. Simple enough. It's dumb that XP makes every user account 'Administrator' by default. They (sort of) fixed that in Vista with their 'Are you sure' prompts, but they only managed to make it annoying enough that most users turn it off, and EVEN WORSE, Vista adds new inaccessible privilege levels above 'Administrator' (but not above mounting the disk with Linux and making the changes you need to).

An 'Add/Remove' is a convenience given to users who own their PCs. Under Ubuntu there are certificates involved to limit the ways this can be abused. You get quite a lot of system generated complaints if you attempt to add non-certified content to the repository, but it'll let you. Of course it will. No amount of software security will protect users dumb enough to kick the door open and let anything in, and these users use every OS. Fortunately, the bar for adding repositories at random is fairly high under Ubuntu. VirtualBox and Wine were two exceptions to the rule, but they are far less likely to cause an issue with my computer than visiting the wrong site in IE and clicking away a security warning about an ActiveX control.

[MasterGuru]

I see not one thing in your long post that is related to anything specific about why gaming is better in Vista, nothing technical, no links to facts, no proof of prior work, all items noted are written about in blogs and news (opinion) on the web beforehand. I do see opinion, conjecture, speculation, and FUD.

I'll revert to my orginal comment.

What is DirectX10.1? Is OpenGL Supported? Are DirectX10 and 10.1 fully backwards compatable? Can you list for us the command line test for Directx10.1 using the OpenGL drivers? What is OpenAL? Have you visited Steam's hardware survey lately?

Is anyone REALLY paying attention? I say not anyone who does not clearly uinderstand how great a decent PC and Vista are.

My points are based on the (3) PC's I have running Vista SP1 in my own home flawlessly, none of which are newer than 2 years, one is an upgrade of a 2000 year PC done way before Vista, and one is my PC I made in 2004. So matter how hard the Anti-MS crows crow, I can refute them without any fear without any uncertainty, and without any doubt that I have made the right decision.

[Evildave]

I told you why it is NOT better. Obviously. Why would I LIE and say it's better for anything?

DirectX 10.1 is not 'better' for anything. It's worse, and I gave you very good reasons.

If DirectX 10/10.1 features were available for Windows XP, it would be an improvement, but since it's installed on a minority of Vista SP1 based systems and only ATI Radeon 3000 series cards actually support the added features, it's only an extra burden on game developers to make 'special case' code to support it. No further analysis of shaders and rendering capabilities necessary.

[xornand]

Agnostic means "don't know" so "OS-neutral" would be more accurate (if that is what you mean).

[MarioJP]

actually there is no true native dx 10 games or dx 10.1 games for that matter. It is obvious that dx 9 still has some life left and devs are not going to stop that works just to try and get dx10 going. Apparently there are no native dx10 games only claming to be dx10 but not by a long shot that it is a native dx10 game.

With that said let me make it very clear that yes dx10 cards WILL RUN dx 10.1 games but only will utilize dx 10 features which are very very minor nothing to get excited about. But rest assured it will run

[Evildave]

Of course it will run. Any DX version will have the other DX layers behind it. DX10 has DX9, 8, 7... all the way back to 1. At least it's supposed to. That's the way it was sold to game developers way back when.

Yeah, it's pretty easy to make a patch to 'require' DX10 and maybe sell a few extra copies to gullible idiots who'll believe they have a better version of the game, or who are desperate to prove to themselves they got their money worth for that $900 pair of video cards collecting dust in the back of their machines.

I suppose that's one 'benefit' of DX10 I didn't think about.

[MarioJP]

Like who would buy a $900 card anyways i only paid 240 which now cost 180 or so and delivers the performance to play current games at max settings at 1600x1200 with everything cranked up so far. Anyone that buys a ridiculously expensive cards are throwing money away as GPU's as we know it have extreme short lifespan as they keep on innovating with far better and CHEAPER cards. And my card happens to be dx9 10 and 10.1. Now that they are cheap i might considering to go crossfire. Or reserve that PCI-E for a more better superior card =P

It is clear that DX9 won't be easy to let go especially when game devs are very custom to it. So DX10 wont really take off until dx9 is maxed out and windows xp isn't going anywhere for awhile especially that it is now being extended to 2010 or 2011 or so.

Thats why i don't encourage people to buy these massive large LCD monitors anything above 24" are asking for some serious gpu upgrades. Sure thats up to them but sometimes bigger is not always better and sides it puts more stress on the card. Making you to upgrade to a more powerful expensive card only to what keep your 30" 32" monitor happy???. No thanks i pass on that lol

If you have a 20-24" monitor however you be able to pretty much get away without having to worrying upgrading for awhile. That is of course you start off with a good card. which that is exactly what i have and so far i am able to run crysis at max not ultra at 1280x1024 with 4xAA enabled. Now thats impressive.

And by the way Crysis is not true directx10 as there is a trick to enable the ultra high settings under windows xp. Thats something that the company did to try to encourage people to buy vista which is kind of messed up for the most part.

[Evildave]

$900 for a DUAL card video solution... and I never said people who pay for gimmicks like this were all that bright.

Even at $240, you coulda bought an XBOX 360, a Wii or a PS3. $250 is pretty reasonable for a graphics card, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying that one day you might just look back while you're upgrading or scrapping your gaming PC in order to play a piece of software you bought that 'should have run', and wish maybe you had bought a console.

As a stupid example we can all agree is stupid, here we have a $2687 video card. If you bought that for a gaming machine, you could've cleaned the shelves out at a GameStop shopping spree from hell... and some idiots get TWO of them to dual-head it. Can you imagine spending over five grand for graphics adapter for a PC for home use? OK, so they're making them for people who are either doing 'professional' imaging work or idiots with too much money, but it's just an example of how far beyond reasonable, and into stupid-stupid land you can go trying to configure a 'killer PC' that doesn't really deliver much better performance than a more reasonably priced PC for a 'normal' person, doing 'normal' things. Of course, for the best example of money burning idiocy gone wild, see the 'Dream PC' specs.

And that drives us to the heart of the matter, at least as far as Windows gaming goes. If you're building a PC gaming rig, you'll save a lot more cash buying a mediocre PC and replacing it every single year than trying to build one that will last as your gaming rig for more than one year. You'll save a HECK of a lot more cash just buying a gaming console (even TWO consoles) and using your perfectly adequate PC until it wears out. Maybe even a 'green' alternative for saving the environment and all that.

DO spend money for a decent UPS, monitor, sound system, keyboard, mouse. You'll keep those through multiple computers.


As far as companies doing 'stupid things' to help Microsoft, Microsoft goes out and makes deals with companies to do these stupid things an injection of cash and a promise of more. It's also one of the leading reasons a new PC comes bundled with all kinds of useless disabled crap (must... resist... Vista joke). They get paid to make these little 'compromises'. Similarly people who write Windows shareware get approached by spyware/malware bundlers constantly to install their warez along with their products. "Money is money", think people who are desperate and/or simultaneously greedy & stupid.

[MarioJP]

and i don't regret spending my money on gaming rigs especially when i been having awsome experiences. Sides most of the xbox360 games are on pc anyways so more reason to continue supporting the pc gaming platform. Sorry but i do not like consoles i already enjoy what pc gaming has to offer so sorry to dissapoint you evildave but not everyone is in it just because it is "cheaper" you could say all you want about how windows sucks and bla bla bla but for me i don't have a problem with it especially when i have 30+ good games that works flawlessly and i am not going to switch to console gaming because its suits best interests well sucks to be you then. But for me its all about liking your favorite platform even if it cost more.
So if you are trying to convince me to game on a console because its a "windows platform" well sorry to burst your fantasy dream there but that aint gonna happen. Sides consoles don't interests me anymore. i played the ps3 xbox 360 and the wii the only console i do like is the wii but i won't buy a wii. I am already entertain with soo many games that are out on the pc so in the end its what you like not because its more expensive. So with that said so sorry to disappoint you but thats life just have to accept how things are.
Say what you want about democracy and the empire crap i am not going to get into that topic as it will just keep flying back and fourth so instead i am just going to ignore these threads as the main purpose i came on here is to see whats out and for helps and tips but apparently windows and linux users don't seem to co exist and if thats the case then i am just not going to bother with these endless debates. Seems like pcworld has become a Linux advocate to convince users to switch to linux and ditch the evil empire and if you want to game its best to game on the console. If thats the kind of attitude i see around you Linux geeks, So much of being a "friendly environment" geeze.
And just so you know gaming is a muti million dollar industry. Which is why most of the games won't work native under linux as there is no official support. The closet thing you can do is use wine. but thats not good enough. Why do you think consoles and windows platform has the most games?? Because there are nothing more than big giants especially EA. It favors more on consoles and the windows platform why because windows is like a console sort of its standardize enough like a console so game devs can bring awsome titles to the this wounder platform which is the PC. Lastly on this Mass Effect was xbox360 exclusive but now its coming to the PC for windows xp and vista. Gee i wounder why theres is no Linux version. Does not take much to figure out why but hey your the expert
So in the end Windows XP is the best gaming platform it just works and this is what matters to most pc gamers. And soon even though still work in progress but eventually vista is slowly becoming the next gaming platform as games that did not work properly is starting to work. And also Microsoft is no longer just in the os business anymore it now has become a os/gaming such as the games for windows and xbox live. Is no wounder why Linux does better on the os and app side because thats the only thing it can do. And thats one of the reason why MS is not with it sometime with latest os lately. It just has too many side business.
So in the end of the day is I don't like consoles and i am not planing to own one either even if its cheaper.
and yup about what you said about upgrading even if $240 upgrade i did stop and think and thought to myself "glad i did no spend this money on consoles" and did not think twice after that :)


PS PCworld forums needs improvements. i dunno the way it is setup i don't like it just a suggestion

[GENGHIS]

All these arguments against Windows have been rolled out every time MS rolls out a new OS. Too big; too complex; compatibility issues for legacy/existing software; drivers; after a while they always settle down. The efficiency of having one OS everyone is familiar with and can knock into shape is a good compromise; wide diversity of after market component suppliers; I think most of the criticism comes from the natural feeling of wanting escape a near-monopoly supply situation. Thus Linux and other alternatives serve as a useful foil to Windows; if they win the battle what then? Do the same critics turn on Linux because it has become the new monopolist?

[Evildave]

Kind of an odd 'monopolist', giving away the thing they control for free.

[cryptodan]

Just remember that consoles cannot be upgraded, and their video hardware is severely lacking. For example, the PS3 is using a GT74 core for its video card. That is only DX9 compatible and OpenGL 1.5 compatible so it is severely limited in what it can do. My computer is using an G80 core which is DX10 and OpenGL 2.0 Compatible. Consoles are only good for the people who cannot afford Mid to high end gaming rigs.



If I had 5Grand to waste on video cards by golly I would sure buy them. People who do not understand computer gaming hardware and computer gaming shouldn't be allowed to discuss them. I belong to several gaming forums, and people who have Vista have stated that even though they lose a few frames per second using vista that their gaming has improved quite abit due to the way Vista handles memory and resources.



THe only reason I got a Ps3 is to use its blu-ray function.

[Rijndahl]

You forgot to mention the fact that Microsoft is deeply in collusion with the U.S. government in spying on our citizens--for example, back-door keys in their SSL encryption, and keyloggers downloaded through the Windows Update service.

[Evildave]

Actually, the NICE thing about consoles is that they CAN NOT be 'Upgraded'.

It levels the playing field immensely. As a developer, you have to learn to USE what the console has in order to make the best-looking game, not lazily expect your end-users to endlessly 'upgrade' their hardware and OS in order to play your game.

Consoles do 'upgrade' periodically anyway. You have a PS... THREE. Two previous Playstation models preceeded it over the last 13 years. About six years per generation. Try to play a new PC game with a five year old computer, and you're generally S.O.L. The console still works fine and the newest software written for it is 100% guaranteed to work. No question about it.

Sure, I can't play 'World Of Warcraft' on my XBOX 360 (nor do I want to), but you can't play Grand Theft Auto IV or Halo 3, on your PC either. Maybe you'll get it later, or maybe you'll just spring for a PS3 copy of GTA IV. There are always trade-offs.

[cryptodan]

Actually consoles prohibit the developers creativity and what not. Id rather play a PC Developed game over a console one, due to several reasons and they are:



1) Game developers for PC's can add new features and release patches that are free.

2) Console controllers cannot be reprogrammed to fit yout gaming styles where as keyboards and mice can be configured numerous ways to allow for different tastes.

3) Gaming on a PC Monitor with a nice video card gives you better resolutions as the pixels are usually smaller then TV's. My 22" crt is better then my 40" HDTV that supports 1080p. I can support greater resolutions on my PC then i can on my LCD TV.

And other reasons but those are the key ones. XBox Live is pay for use where as I can lauch Steam and play with my friends for free.

[MarioJP]

And also that up till now that pc hardware has gotten cheaper and more bang for the buck these days. Only trade off is knowledge once you get that sorted out you can pretty play any current titles thats on the xbox 360 and ps3. So far all the games that are multi platform i am able to play it just mighty fine and yet without putting a hole in my wallet.

One advice is avoid retail for parts they never have good selections and plus its a rip off too.

Speaking of Steam that is one great service. Especially able to play steam games without the disc.

And one thing to add besides what the above poster has said but also that game developers has to kiss ass to MS and Sony to get their "seal of approval" and also pay a royalty fee which can be limiting, where as the PC version of that game its free and freedom choice and creativity.

[dridoc]

With 95% of revenue coming from OEM sales, it would seem that to save XP, pressure must be applied and brought to bear upon the OEM's. Contact them and let them know that your future purchases from them will be dependent upon having the XP o/s available on their products.

Applying such pressure to MICROSOFT is futile and not unlike Don Quixote tilting at windmills. Hard for them to hear when they suffer from severe Cranial-Rectal Inversion syndrome.

[KurtRayner]

I wrote a lengthy response, but realized the input box only holds 1,000 characters ... so I posted it on my blog, and linked back here. Hope this is acceptable by the moderators! The comment is at
http://tinyurl.com/6zhdnj

[Evildave]

1. You can go into XBOX Live or whatever the PS3 equivalent is, and get updates, levels and patches. The new consoles have a hard drive inside to store that junk, and internet connectivity, and they do use it. XBOX live has tons of old PC titles getting ported to it. PS3 will allegedly have much the same service. They only just released some more multiplayer maps for Halo 3.

2. False. Get one that can be. Many games also have multiple control configurations.

3. VGA cables are inexpensively available for the XBOX 360 and PS3. I have one.

Heck, you can even install Linux on the PS3 and add a keyboard and mouse and make it your desktop computer. When you want to, you can just stick a PS3 game right into the drive just like your PC.

There is no difference in the amount of creativity you can put into a PC or console title. You may as well claim that owning a Macintosh instantly renders any given clod 'more creative', like the silly TV ads do. There usually is steep overhead to buy a developer kit for a console though, and publishing the game is a little steep, but for that matter, getting a PC title onto the shelves in front of consumers is a nightmare.

For instance, Psychonauts was a very creative game, and ran just fine on my XBOX. More creativity went into that game than any PC or console title that year. I highly recommend it if you haven't played it. The final 'meat circus' level sort of sucked, though.

http://www.escapistm...ion-Psychonauts

[mikedgolf40505]

I think that Gartner has lost his mind. There seems to be a lot of anti-capitalists who hate Microsoft. They obviously have a hard time comprehending what a dramatic impact upon the world economy that Microsoft has had and continues to have into the 21st century. I am not a loyal Microsoft fan (I own a MacBook Pro and a HP dv9000t), I like both Leopard and Vista. They both have their good points and their bad. I am also amazed at the amount of people who take the time to blog that hate Vista. My Vista system runs great. It is super fast; a lot faster than my old XP system. I love the new search engine on it. I did not like taking the extra time to clean off all the junk that comes pre-loaded on any Windows PC. But everyone that I personally know that has a Vista system is very happy. There are going to be compatability issues whenever you roll out a new OS. Look at Leopard, it had compatability issues with some of Apple's own software! Those issues go to the vendors not the OS manufacturer. They get the Beta with plenty of time to develop new drivers. Did it ever occur to ANYONE out there, that they may not develop new drivers to make us buy new hardware and software?? As far as open source goes, I know that there are other ways to make money without copyright and patents. However, it is not the government's or any one else's job to tell any company how to run their business. It is the government's job to uphold the laws on copyrights and patents. The reason open source has never been able to catch a mainstream consumer base is simple; their is not enough financial incentive to produce products that the masses want. It is called supply and demand. There is nothing immoral or dirty about making money. This is a capitalist country; if you do not like it then move to China or Cuba and let me know how that works out for Gartner and all the other Microsoft bashers.