Warp wrote:
> Mike Raiford <mra### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> My vista upgrade to my home computer hasn't been as smooth as the 
>> upgrade adviser has lead me to believe.
> 
>   But why did you "upgrade"? Wasn't XP working for you for some reason?
> Was there something in Vista which you really needed and which isn't
> available for XP? Peer pressure? Hype?
> 

DirectX 10, Some major improvements in the shell UI. Been using machines 
at work that have it. I liked it, so I upgraded. It wasn't a necessary 
upgrade, per se... But it was probably one of the more painful ones.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
>> They actually want to play the latest games, which MS still won't 
>> release a XP version of DirectX 10 for?
> 
>   How many games supporting extra features of DX10 are there? (And how
> many of those games run at a reasonable framerate when using those extra
> features with current hardware?)
> 

Flight Sim has preliminary support, Though come to find out that 
"Supports DirectX 10" on the box wasn't true at all. :(

So, I have no idea if FSX works or looks any better on a DX10 machine, 
still. But I can tell you under XP with a reasonably fast system, it 
either looked like crap or ran dog slow. Your choice.

So, now I'm shopping for a real DX10 video card.

Post a reply to this message

In article <47d8207c$1@news.povray.org>, mra### [at] hotmailcom says...
> Warp wrote:
> > Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
> >> They actually want to play the latest games, which MS still won't 
> >> release a XP version of DirectX 10 for?
> > 
> >   How many games supporting extra features of DX10 are there? (And how
> > many of those games run at a reasonable framerate when using those extr
a
> > features with current hardware?)
> > 
> 
> Flight Sim has preliminary support, Though come to find out that 
> "Supports DirectX 10" on the box wasn't true at all. :(
> 
> So, I have no idea if FSX works or looks any better on a DX10 machine, 
> still. But I can tell you under XP with a reasonably fast system, it 
> either looked like crap or ran dog slow. Your choice.
> 
> So, now I'm shopping for a real DX10 video card.
> 
Doesn't run slow on ours. But its buggier than hell, including one 
unpatched one, which causes corruption of a stupid logbook file. I 
finally set up a simple batch file to run every time my fathers machine 
started, to delete the file, so the game would work if he had to reboot 
it (and often it would hang the game so bad you did).

Now, Halo 2, as far as I know, won't run without Vista. Same for some 
other games, or at least their box says so. No idea if this is true or 
not though. Seriously, I don't think the problem is DirectX 10, but 
rather Vista itself. Adding a bit better features and things like god 
lights **shouldn't** slow the frame rate down. Running it on an OS that 
can't run non-3D software without it running slower than hell... That 
*would* probably make 3D run like tree sap in winter.

But, it just pisses me off that I can't even buy the newest games 
without either shelling out for a console, or buying and OS that won't 
run them right anyway.

-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:

> Warp wrote:
>> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] rraznet> wrote:
>>> They actually want to play the latest games, which MS still won't
>>> release a XP version of DirectX 10 for?
>> 
>>   How many games supporting extra features of DX10 are there? (And how
>> many of those games run at a reasonable framerate when using those extra
>> features with current hardware?)
>> 
> 
> Flight Sim has preliminary support, Though come to find out that
> "Supports DirectX 10" on the box wasn't true at all. :(
> 
> So, I have no idea if FSX works or looks any better on a DX10 machine,
> still. But I can tell you under XP with a reasonably fast system, it
> either looked like crap or ran dog slow. Your choice.
> 
> So, now I'm shopping for a real DX10 video card.

That's true - with XP SP2 on a 3.4 gHz machine with PCI-EX 7950 Nvidia card
(ok, ok, that's a bit dated already, I know!) I rarely get more than 6 FPS
on the ground at an airport. At altitude I can make about 22 on my rig in
FSX. That's with most options on - dropping options doesn't seem to help
much either. Going to 3x on antialiasing makes it unsimmable - 1 or 2 FPS.
-- 
Stefan

Post a reply to this message