http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6110958.stm

For businesses. That's for companies that make computers, it won't be avalaible publically until January 2007. Nothing terribly exciting.

Janually
Is it actuary released in Janually?

Is it actuary released in Janually?

Right .

Has this become the "post links to news posts" forum?

Has this become the "post links to news posts" forum?
It rather is a "post links to old hat" forum. :rolleyes:

good to know that businessmen will be able to further sell their souls with the latest updates soon :rolleyes:

luckily I believe there's a DirectX in works that'll allow XP to run DX10 games, just not quite as well...

Could someone summarize what's new in Vista?
Because I don't really follow Windows, obviously, but I'd still like to know.

Especially if one of the new features is "Doesn't destroy your keyboard".

Could someone summarize what's new in Vista?
Because I don't really follow Windows, obviously, but I'd still like to know.

Especially if one of the new features is "Doesn't destroy your keyboard".only ones I've followed are that it's shiny, it has widgets, and it has Direct X 10 (which doesn't work on XP because M$ like their money)

...and it'll aparently run most games slower, and it has even crazier DRM than XP. All in all, there's not many reasons to get it other than that's it's new.

...and it'll aparently run most games slower, and it has even crazier DRM than XP. All in all, there's not many reasons to get it other than that's it's new.

"Run most games slower" = "not compatible with DX9 or lower except through emulation routines", meaning I can just imagine we'll see numerous bugs with non-DX10 games well into the future too.

and it has Direct X 10 (which doesn't work on XP because M$ like their money)
No; it's mainly because of the WDDM,
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/articles/447226.aspx

"Run most games slower" = "not compatible with DX9 or lower except through emulation routines", meaning I can just imagine we'll see numerous bugs with non-DX10 games well into the future too.
I thought it was compatible with DirectX9?

No; it's mainly because of the WDDM,
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/articles/447226.aspxSomehting the size of microsoft could easily add that to XP, they're deliberatly chosing not to. Personnally I think (or prehaps 'desperatly hope'?) it will actually backfire on them, because there's not much profit in releasing a game which only a minority of customers can play.

there's not much profit in releasing a game which only a minority of customers can play.

AHEM (http://www.bungie.net/Games/Halo2Vista/) :rolleyes:

there's not much profit in releasing a game which only a minority of customers can play.AHEM (http://www.us.playstation.com/PS3/default.html) again. :rolleyes:

Nice working with you Aku :p

Our point being: There are a LOT of people stuid enough to buy a console for an "instert console here"-only game just because they want that one game.

Guess they'll be stupid enough to buy Vista for DX10 games like HALO2 vista...

Nice working with you Aku :p

Our point being: There are a LOT of people stuid enough to buy a console for an "instert console here"-only game just because they want that one game.

Guess they'll be stupid enough to buy Vista for DX10 games like HALO2 vista...I might end up being one of those if Age of Conan is, in fact, a Vista-only game.

Age of Conan

When Conan O'Brian ruled the planet with an iron fist.

When Conan O'Brian ruled the planet with an iron fist. but of course. did I not make that part clear enough? :p

I must admit that if that was really what that game were about, I'd buy it in a heartbeat.
Who wouldn't?

I must admit that if that was really what that game were about, I'd buy it in a heartbeat.
Who wouldn't?I would have to see how funny it was before I'd buy it

OH GOD NO, RUN! WOMEN AND CHILDREN FIRST... RIGHT BEHIND ME!
Oh wait, bussiness only eh... phew. We still have a couple more months.
*prepares rock for hiding*

...I read, that with Vista will be new format of comprasing images (better, then JPG). But authors of this article not sure, that it will be popular... :rolleyes:

I doubt "vista" itself will be the image format.. if so then we can soon see stuff like ScreenShot0005.vista that will not display on any other OS. :D

Microsoft sure are evil geniuses.

I doubt "vista" itself will be the image format.. if so then we can soon see stuff like ScreenShot0005.vista that will not display on any other OS. :D

Microsoft sure are evil geniuses.
Complete with DRM protection so you can only watch the image 5 times then have to buy a new Vista license. :D

Hehehe.

AHEM (http://www.bungie.net/Games/Halo2Vista/) :rolleyes:

I'm hoping the PS3 will fail abismally too, and who cares about Halo 2? It was alright, but not worth spending real money on.

Complete with DRM protection so you can only watch the image 5 times then have to buy a new Vista license. :D

ROFL, sounds about right.

New image format? I PLEDGE TO PNG! screw Mirco$haft!

What's the big idea? Aren't there enough image formats?

What's the big idea? Aren't there enough image formats?
Well, there's no allotted, strictly unsurpassable image format quota; all the popular formats have their own areas of usage.

I thought it was compatible with DirectX9?No no no, you're thinking of every other DirectX version. DirectX 10 comes with the new "screw you over" feature, so it emulates DX9 or earlier instead. :p

And if you're bored, go look at the MS Feature List: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/features/default.mspx

But I suspect you'll want to look more at the even-more-demanding-than-before requirements. :p

A Windows Vista Capable PC includes at least:
- A modern processor (at least 800MHz 1).
- 512 MB of system memory.
- A graphics processor that is DirectX 9 capable.

A Windows Vista Premium Ready PC includes at least:
- 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor 1.
- 1 GB of system memory.
- Support for DirectX 9 graphics with a WDDM driver, 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum) 2, Pixel Shader 2.0 and 32 bits per pixel.
- 40 GB of hard drive capacity with 15 GB free space.
- DVD-ROM Drive 3.
- Audio output capability.
- Internet access capability.

1. Processor speed is specified as the nominal operational processor frequency for the device. Some processors have power management which allows the processor to run at lower rate to save power.
2. If the GPU uses shared memory, then no additional graphics memory is required beyond the 1 GB system memory requirement; If the GPU uses dedicated memory then 128MB is required.
3. A DVD-ROM may be external (not integral, not built into the system).

haha i wouldnt enable any shaders on a geforce 6600gt (my card) due to how crap and slow it is... btw what is wddm? is it like wdm and vxd?

No no no, you're thinking of every other DirectX version. DirectX 10 comes with the new "screw you over" feature, so it emulates DX9 or earlier instead. :p

And if you're bored, go look at the MS Feature List: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/features/default.mspx

But I suspect you'll want to look more at the even-more-demanding-than-before requirements. :p

...


WTF? You need a supercomputer just to run your OS? Nice move M$!

I just bought a laptop (MSI Powerbook) that has a sticker that says "vista capable" but I doubt it will run smoothly if you look at those specs! jeez!

haha i wouldnt enable any shaders on a geforce 6600gt (my card) due to how crap and slow it is... btw what is wddm? is it like wdm and vxd?

Crap and slow? A 6600gt? That's a pretty damn powerful card, mate!

I still don't get why MS want to push the specs up. Down would be a far better move, faster loading times, quicker menus, etc etc. Your average blokey who knows zilch about computers will probably just make comments about how it's still as slow as ever. XP had big selling points, it looked good without eating up too much requirements, it was actually stable, it generally worked and it had a bit more security than previous windows versions, and it booted nearly twice as fast as 98. Vista holds ...fancy graphics and DRM... over XP, wowee.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/systemrequirements.mspx - System Requirements

15 GB free space?! XP only needed ~3.5GB.

15 GB free space?! XP only needed ~3.5GB.

Even in that context the word "only" is straining to meet the demands you have placed upon it.

Didn't the first XP ads say you would have MORE space?

Ah, but XP runs on a different FAT to the older versions, so every small file you have, and Windows virtually runs on small files, will take up half as much space as it did on previous versions. If you have a lot of them you will save space by installing the larger OS,strange as it sounds. It also supports compressed drives, but I think W98 did that as well.

Then explain why you need 15 GIG of HDD space, and don't say "virtual memory", that's bull.

Fancy graphics probably.

Yeah, most of the higher requirements are for the new Windows Aero, though the standard Windows theme is still available for those that only meet the "Capable PC" requirements.

If anyone's curious, here's an old concept from 2003: (back in the Longhorn days) http://youtube.com/watch?v=b9ifQvQCO7Y

The only thing I desire is a nice, clean, user friendly interface with as little bells and horns as possible! If no fancy graphics shave a couple of gig, I'm willing to make the sacrifice, and I think I'm not the only one!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Dq7SVDfpKhY&mode=related&search= <Looks nice, but is totally irrellevant and NOT worth 15 gig.

The only thing I desire is a nice, clean, user friendly interface with as little bells and horns as possible! If no fancy graphics shave a couple of gig, I'm willing to make the sacrifice, and I think I'm not the only one!
I'm more worried on the strain it would put on your CPU, and how laggy it could make your games.

What do you think I mean with a nice, clean, user friendly interface?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Dq7SVDfpKhY&mode=related&search= <Looks nice, but is totally irrellevant and NOT worth 15 gig.that's IT?! THAT'S what's making us use that much more memory?! christ! it's windowblinds with less customization. that's IT. ffs, we're paying $300 for an upgrade to windows that makes it more like a $20 downloadable program. there better be far more than THAT to justify the added stuff because window blinds accomplishes the same thing with so much less memory it's ridiculous

Well, you get added DRM thrown in as well.

I know Im probably going to be flamed for this, and probably shouted at by an angry mod (doesnt help that i cant be bothered to read the second page), but Id like to say it anyway.

You are all fanboys, please stop, its quite tiring

Obviously I dont mean all as in all, i mean all as in 90% of you

Hear me out! EVERY time there is ANYTHING mentioned about sony or microsoft, every jumps on the 'we hate [company]!' bandwagon, and it looks like you aren't even looking at 'facts' anymore, which at least you used to pretend to do.

You are of course entitled to your opinions :) but please make sure they are at least your own and preferably informed.

[jumps on bandwagon]
Besides, it cant be worse than xpoo!
[/indeed]

You are of course entitled to your opinions :) but please make sure they are at least your own and preferably informed.
Well, good point, but as much as there is a lot of jumping onto the anti-sony and anti-ms feeling about, I'm pretty genuine about it this time. I've never liked the consoles and where games seem to be heading over the last few years (fancy graphics over gameplay), and then the PS3 comes along with my two pet hates rolled into one. Add this to some of Sony's recent business practises too.

As to Vista, I've also disliked DRM intensly for a long time and MS (appear) to have taken it to a whole new level with Vista. Added to what MS are trying to do with DirectX will make the yet more fancy graphics games (and unfortunatly many decent games using lisenced engines) Vista-dependant. I'm really really hoping Vista will fail, but I expect it will simply do not too well for a while (missing christmas, being bloody expensive, not actually offering much, high specs, etc), but unfortunatly pick up after a year or so. I'm hoping DRM will put off your more 'average' users.

Vista should be instore on 30th Jan 2007: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6130604.stm

I know Im probably going to be flamed for this, and probably shouted at by an angry mod (doesnt help that i cant be bothered to read the second page), but Id like to say it anyway.

You are all fanboys, please stop, its quite tiring

Obviously I dont mean all as in all, i mean all as in 90% of you

Hear me out! EVERY time there is ANYTHING mentioned about sony or microsoft, every jumps on the 'we hate [company]!' bandwagon, and it looks like you aren't even looking at 'facts' anymore, which at least you used to pretend to do.

You are of course entitled to your opinions :) but please make sure they are at least your own and preferably informed.

[jumps on bandwagon]
Besides, it cant be worse than xpoo!
[/indeed]FACT: directx 10 only works on vista. without knowing anything else, I hate MS for that fact alone. I don't need to know anything else to justify my hate here. sure, we all hate MS, but this time it's justified,

erm..
http://youtube.com/watch?v=AEJf2oYTsYg
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DOzNSMayIV4&mode=related&search=
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compiz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryl_%28window_manager%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIGLX
costs: 0
Linux: having all the eyecandy you need since 1984
*runs*

FACT: directx 10 only works on vista. without knowing anything else, I hate MS for that fact alone. I don't need to know anything else to justify my hate here. sure, we all hate MS, but this time it's justified,
Perhaps, but http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/articles/447226.aspx had me convinced otherwise...

Perhaps, but http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/articles/447226.aspx had me convinced otherwise...

ill awnser that with a quote from your link
DirectX10 is exclusive to Windows Vista and is not slated to be supported by any other platform. This will ensure that the next-gen games will be available on Windows Vista before any other platform.

and about the pics, there is no way of comparing crysis to halo 1... its just bull****, they might as well compare pacman to hl2 and say " ooh, look at how good our new graphics are"

and about the pics, there is no way of comparing crysis to halo 1... its just bull****, they might as well compare pacman to hl2 and say " ooh, look at how good our new graphics are"And what was even crazier was they had a lovely high quality screenshot for DX10 and used a low quality jpeg for the other screenshot!

ill awnser that with a quote from your link
That's pretty much the same as Sony not allowing Team17's Lemmings on another console, except on a bigger scale.

and about the pics, there is no way of comparing crysis to halo 1... its just bull****, they might as well compare pacman to hl2 and say " ooh, look at how good our new graphics are"
Yeah, that pic pair was really bogus.
Instead, I rely on the technical information. Such as http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTA0NSwyLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==


Also, I'd like to point out that Vista WILL be able to play the older DirectX versions. They're making(made?) a Direct9.0L for this, which will be kept separate from the Dx10.
Frankly, the more I read on Vista, the more I get convinced that it'll actually be great!

Also, I'd like to point out that Vista WILL be able to play the older DirectX versions. They're making(made?) a Direct9.0L for this, which will be kept separate from the Dx10.
Frankly, the more I read on Vista, the more I get convinced that it'll actually be great!

I've also read that DirectX 9 and below games will actually run slower, due to Vista using more system resources though.

I've also read that DirectX 9 and below games will actually run slower, due to Vista using more system resources though.
That's what I suspected too (the recources part).

I think it's a bit ridiculous you practically NEED dx 9 to run windows... And OTT effects liketh shady glass panes... I'm better off without it.

I really don't see any use for a buggy, built on rotting code, piece of rubbish until atleast december 2 years later.:p If my grandparents get that, I'm going to explode. I miss my 98 system. I also miss updates not taking up tons of memory that I could use for stuff that isn't any good for my comp but I'm proud to have.

Also, I'd like to point out that Vista WILL be able to play the older DirectX versions. They're making(made?) a Direct9.0L for this, which will be kept separate from the Dx10.
Frankly, the more I read on Vista, the more I get convinced that it'll actually be great!uh, your point? I said that DX10 won't be available on XP, not that DX9 won't be supported on vista. my problem with vista is that 10 is exclusive to vista, which means that when new games come out, I have to fork out something like $300 to M$ because they're greedy *******s. and for my purchase, what do I get? exactly what I have now except that games will work better. vista adds NOTHING of interest except for better graphics (window blinds does that now for $20), but requires my machine to churn out 3 times more than it has to churn out now. where's the justification for that? I pay $300 and my games run like ass because the OS requires too much, but I can't play the games because I have to have vista to play them. by the time games are made with DX10 (which is NOT far away) I'll have to get a new OS for $300, a new motherboard so that I can support more RAM cards to be able to run Vista while games are running, a new video card that's compatible with DX10 (yes, you have to have a video card made for DX10 to actually get the full benefits from DX10), and a better processor to be able to handle it all. do I even need to go into how much that upgrading is gunna cost?

(yes, you have to have a video card made for DX10 to actually get the full benefits from DX10)
You must mean any benefits.

DX10 exclusive games are at least a year away. Companies realise that their customers aren't going to upgrade immediately, mainly because most people don't upgrade their OS - they buy a new PC which happens to have it. In a years time, I imagine the price of the upgrades you need will be fairly cheap, especially since graphics cards will have gone through about 3 series, so you can get the first lot of DX10 cards cheaper.

uh, your point? I said that DX10 won't be available on XP, not that DX9 won't be supported on vista. my problem with vista is that 10 is exclusive to vista, which means that when new games come out, I have to fork out something like $300 to M$ because they're greedy *******s. and for my purchase, what do I get? exactly what I have now except that games will work better. vista adds NOTHING of interest except for better graphics (window blinds does that now for $20), but requires my machine to churn out 3 times more than it has to churn out now. where's the justification for that? I pay $300 and my games run like ass because the OS requires too much, but I can't play the games because I have to have vista to play them. by the time games are made with DX10 (which is NOT far away) I'll have to get a new OS for $300, a new motherboard so that I can support more RAM cards to be able to run Vista while games are running, a new video card that's compatible with DX10 (yes, you have to have a video card made for DX10 to actually get the full benefits from DX10), and a better processor to be able to handle it all. do I even need to go into how much that upgrading is gunna cost?
1: It was in regards to everyone saying that Dx10 doesn't have backwards compatibility, not to your post.
2: Let's wait and see what happens. (see above post)

mainly the fact that DX10 is required is stopping alot of people from buying Vista.
And since Vista hasn't got (m)any pro's without DX10.... you figure out the rest easily..

window blinds does that now for $20

IN fairness, there are free tools that unlock XP's built-in skinning feature, which is almost as good as Blinds and less memory intensive.

It is a bit annoying that you can't run games without Vista, and if you do have Vista there won't be enough system resources left to run the games. I believe Joseph Heller has been consulting for Microsoft on this project. But I think since most people will get Vista accidentally when they replace their PC, I don't think it'll be a major problem. Not for a good while, anyhow. Besides, we always have consoles.

Though to be fair (to people who were whining about OTT effects), those don't run while you're gaming. They're in memory, but so is all kinds of other stuff, and when it's not in use it gets put in the swap file out of the way. The sheer power of PCs these days it's only right they should look nice. There's just no excuse for ugly W3.1 style graphics on a PC as swish as mine.

DX10 exclusive games are at least a year away.http://community.ageofconan.com/wsp/conan/frontend.cgi?func=frontend.show&template=main

release date: Q2 2007

http://community.ageofconan.com/wsp/conan/frontend.cgi?func=frontend.show&template=main

release date: Q2 2007

You fail .

11.5 What does it mean to be a Windows Vista launch title?
This means that we are cooperating with Microsoft in the development of Age of Conan to make sure it takes advantage of all the new gaming specific features found in Windows Vista, the upcoming new operating system from Microsoft. As the first MMO game Age of Conan will also feature DX10 support, which allows us to bring an even more detailed gameworld to the players. The game can also be played in DX9.

I can see the Dx9 support for the games for Dx10 staying for a while, until everyone has Vista.

You fail .blah, owned by technicalities.

first there was windows XP wich was a joke, hence the 'XP' part
then there was windows longhorn which isnt just a transformer (http://i22.ebayimg.com/05/i/07/9d/ac/76_2.JPG) its also a slow cow-like thing (http://www.bithewaymovie.com/photos/longhorn.jpg)
then there was windows vista.. vista meaning 'view' wich is also exactly what they've changed

Well, I wil be able to test Vista pretty soon (I got my sources ;) ) so I'll let you know what it's all about!

This thread amuses me to no end.

You people are actually surprised that Microsoft isn't too keen on backward-compatibility. That the requirements have risen like they always do in every Windows version. That Windows has become more bulky like it always does in every version.

Come on, when XP came out, the requirements were also way up for its time, yet you don't see anyone complaining now, most of you Windows users have XP and wouldn't have it any other way.

Most of you are just looking at the screenies and going "wow, it looks like before, only fancier". Well gee, doesn't every Windows version? Did any of you actually try the beta or even read at the extensive list of changes in the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista)?

You're not being forced to upgrade any differently than with previous versions. If you have such a problem with DX10 being Vista-specific, get a console. If you have such a problem with the new look, you'll still have the option to use ye olde Windows Classic, or even Windows Vista Basic, which is like Aero but without all of the fancy effects and added graphical requirements.

You can't go and say that Vista was gonna force you to upgrade because of the new requirements, since with PCs you always have to keep upgrading if you wanna keep playing the latest stuff. Most new games already exceed Vista's requirements.

In any case I doubt most of you actually bought Windows at its huge price. You either get it pre-installed on your computers, off someone you know, or off a p2p network. Come on, be honest. So you can't go whining about that either.

If you don't like it, don't get it, simple as that. If you've made your point on why you don't like it, don't keep whining about it. Yes it's bulky, yes it's huge, yes it's unsecure, yes it's not that big a difference, but it's Windows, it'll always be like this.

And I'll still upgrade when my dad gets it for the whole network. And I'll like the fancy new look. And how they finally got rid of that My Documents and My Computer and My Crap. And that the European version will be forced to ship without a built-in WMP. And that they'll remove useless crap like Windows Messenger, the Messenger Service, Hyperterminal and MSN Explorer. And that they finally made the Search feature actually user-friendly. And that it will have built-in voice recognition. Etc.

This style are not so bad:
28907
(I found it in internet-newspaper. There was an article, where was info about tactic of Microsoft: "If you will buy computer in the end of the year with XP, we will update it to Vista with discount"... or free... something so I had read)
__________________________
I will instal Vista past the year: by this time lot of errors will be known.

And undoubtfully there will be third party styles down the road.

You could judge windows vista by its requirements from the system and even by single screenshots and movie clips that show you a tiny percentage of what you will be upgrading to. But, unless you've checked out the beta, you have no idea how well it will function. Infact, I have read article upon article about how much more it will be of a gaming platform than XP, bringing in new factors like directx 10. I have heard tonnes of comments on both sides of this argument and I am skeptical about both. There is not one single argument that I can truly believe until I have experienced facts. And the same should go to pretty much everyone else. Even if you've played the beta its pretty unstable anyway.

bringing in new factors like directx 10

I've heard nothing of DirectX 10 except that it will be Vista-only. Unless I hear some features for it I'm not getting excited. I'm unlikely to get excited anyway.

I've heard nothing of DirectX 10 except that it will be Vista-only. Unless I hear some features for it I'm not getting excited. I'm unlikely to get excited anyway. What...yes...!

I've heard nothing of DirectX 10 except that it will be Vista-only. Unless I hear some features for it I'm not getting excited. I'm unlikely to get excited anyway.
As I posted earlier in this topic:
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/articles/447226.aspx
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTA0NSwyLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

Oh I get ATs post now...

If what the vista team blog shows is true, Directx 10's transformation is stunning. Those faces...

I still don't get what's to stop you doing that with DX9 or even openGL. Surely it's very high quality textures and models that influence it far more than anything else?

I'm going to take a wild stab at the answer and say...

You could do that with dx 9 but the way that dx 9 works in comparison with dx 10 would mean that the computer would completely slow down. I remember reading in that blog that there was something to do with dx 10 taking away alot of traffic between GPU and CPU making the whole thing alot more efficient. This means that with higher textures and quality everything dosnt slow down...as much. The CPU can handle what the GPU is asking it to do.

This thread amuses me to no end.



Why can't we whine about M$? Everyone does it and it makes us feel good!

And I will be trying Vista very soon (if the guy brings me the damn cd!)
and I'll be writing a (p)revieuw on it so you'll know what your up against!

I don't mind whining, as long as you got an original reason for it by the second page. :p

If what the vista team blog shows is true, Directx 10's transformation is stunning. Those faces...

No, it's not. That's just what happens when you compare a game released in 2003 to one released in 2007. The lion's share of that change has come from using more advanced graphics hardware and the from skill of the people who designed the models. DirectX' influence is at best small and necessarily impossible to define. If you run Halo: Combat Evolved in DirectX 10 it will not look like picture 2.

Notice the release dates of the games aren't marked on that page anywhere. Frankly it's tantamount to misleading advertising.

Your all staring yourselves blind on DX10, Vista is an OPERATING SYSTEM, not a gaming platform!

Your all staring yourselves blind on DX10, Vista is an OPERATING SYSTEM, not a gaming platform!

But MS want to turn it into an exclusive gaming platform.

But MS want to turn it into an exclusive gaming platform.

From what I saw, that's only a small part. Look further than DX10 and THEN tell u what you think of vista!

(Oh by the way, I should get my vista cd by tomorrow)

From what I saw, that's only a small part. Look further than DX10 and THEN tell u what you think of vista!

(Oh by the way, I should get my vista cd by tomorrow)

I see... DRM.

I see... DRM.

What's DRM?

Protection against copying music, except it extends to the number of times you can copy the music over to a player you own, or burn it to CD. It's a good idea that is a bit out of control - when you buy music, you should be able to burn or copy it however many times you want, so long as you don't distribute it.

Also, out of interest, how are you getting a Vista CD tomorrow? Microsoft only just released it to businesses.

Yep, Digital 'Rights' Management. In other (mildly bias) words, the big companies will only let you do what they want with your music or videos. It's one of the reasons I'm against Blu-ray too.

DRM managment is getting out of hand and Vista is only going to make matters, from the customers point of view, worse.

If MS put as much time into quality, features and innovation as they did extra security and copy-write protection, etc, they'd have one stomper of an OS.
I know you want security and everything, but I just think MS focuses far to much on it.

Also, out of interest, how are you getting a Vista CD tomorrow? Microsoft only just released it to businesses.

Before you call in the mods, it's a perfect legal copy.

I'm friends with a boss from a company where I did my on-the-job training which bought Vista and I can use the CD (companys can install on X number of machines, dunno how many...).

a friend of mine had to beta test it or something. i'd say it looks awfull... but they finally got rid of the ugly green start button!

No, it's not. That's just what happens when you compare a game released in 2003 to one released in 2007. The lion's share of that change has come from using more advanced graphics hardware and the from skill of the people who designed the models. DirectX' influence is at best small and necessarily impossible to define. If you run Halo: Combat Evolved in DirectX 10 it will not look like picture 2.

Notice the release dates of the games aren't marked on that page anywhere. Frankly it's tantamount to misleading advertising. Cha. I realised that after posting it on BTP. Halo actually runs on Dirextx 7.

And yes of course I knew it wouldnt look any better on Dx 10 than it does there. Gawd.

From what I saw, that's only a small part. Look further than DX10 and THEN tell u what you think of vista! I am looking mainly at DX 10 for sole reason that the only reason I will buy would be because it might be a better operating system to run games on. But yes, the fact that mircrosoft has advertised DX 10 as one of its most prominent features means that it dosn't appear to have many other improvements.

Cha. I realised that after posting it on BTP. Halo actually runs on Dirextx 7.

And yes of course I knew it wouldnt look any better on Dx 10 than it does there. Gawd.for reference purposes, try this image for a comparison in graphics. once again the difference is hardware not direct x, but it's at least a closer representation.
http://knd.org.uk/imageboard/images/21defc2438576ebbb56a32b74206a115.jpg

edit: also, that image they did of the scenery is very biased as well. they put NO effort into the dx9 version. I could make that one myself with Bryce and 30 minutes of free time. the second one was actually a professionally made image. the difference isn't nearly that startling.

I know you want security and everything, but I just think MS focuses far to much on it.

Then how come they're still so thoroughly awful at it? Microsoft seem far more concerned with creating the illusion of security.

Then how come they're still so thoroughly awful at it? Microsoft seem far more concerned with creating the illusion of security.

Well said!

Pilot: Service pack 2 was a major security update according to M$, but a few weeks(/days?) after release ANOTHER patch was released for - Guess what - SECURITY UPDATES and leaks in SP2!

So, MS think: "Resque of drowners is the job of drowners"...
But we have a choise: Vista, MacOs or Linux!
*А как Kaspersky, Dr.Web и Norton Antivirus? Плюс куча фаерволлов???*

To be fair about the SP2 thing, Windows is a big OS. They can hardly stamp out every bug in it before releasing it. A security hole was found and they patched it up in a few days. Good job Microsoft, in my eyes. The patch can only go through real testing when a few million people around the globe are using it.

Then how come they're still so thoroughly awful at it? Microsoft seem far more concerned with creating the illusion of security.

Yes and no. You've got to remember that Microsoft absolutely dominate the OS market, so hackers are going to focus on Windows. If as many hackers focused on Mac OSX or even Linux I bet they would find bugs just the same.

People report bugs, Microsoft fix them. That's the best anyone can do.

Well said!

Pilot: Service pack 2 was a major security update according to M$, but a few weeks(/days?) after release ANOTHER patch was released for - Guess what - SECURITY UPDATES and leaks in SP2!

Well, IE7 was supposed to be much more secure, but there are still huge flaws from what I've heard. My Dad was advised not to touch it with a bargepole until at least the first patch has been released. It's not something I'm worried or care about, as I use opera, so I don't know much about IE7's security ins and outs, but still.

Then how come they're still so thoroughly awful at it? Microsoft seem far more concerned with creating the illusion of security.
That's because it's next to impossible to actually show an increase in security itself.

Well, IE7 was supposed to be much more secure, but there are still huge flaws from what I've heard. My Dad was advised not to touch it with a bargepole until at least the first patch has been released. It's not something I'm worried or care about, as I use opera, so I don't know much about IE7's security ins and outs, but still. IE7 is not that bad. It feels nice to the touch and MS has now bothered to implement new features such as tabs to keep up with firefox and the likes. They just never bothered to finish the job. I could swear that the official release is exactly the same as their first beta. I still get exactly the same random messages when I try and load non-specific sites and some of them still refuse to just go, forcing me to end task the whole browser. At least Opera works, thats all. I use firefox, however, because Opera displays some pages really strangely.
Then how come they're still so thoroughly awful at it? Microsoft seem far more concerned with creating the illusion of security.
The more I read up about microsoft, the more it looks as if Mircrosoft is just one massive illusion. A black hole for money. I don't usually take sides with this kind of arguement, but this looks bad

Yes and no. You've got to remember that Microsoft absolutely dominate the OS market, so hackers are going to focus on Windows. If as many hackers focused on Mac OSX or even Linux I bet they would find bugs just the same.

People report bugs, Microsoft fix them. That's the best anyone can do. Would you like to hear another of my so called swiss cheese theories of mine? Microsoft do dominate the whole OS market. What you can't do is blame them for doing so just to get their hands on more sweet juicy green money because thats what every succesful business wants in the end: to make a profit. Infact dominating a market means more than that. What they've managed to do is slap billions of people around the face with their fancy new operating systems every few years or so and the people that don't know any better, the majority of the population, think they will have no other choice but to buy the damn thing. Microsoft ends up with an endless cycle of escalating profit that no other company can easily stop. Once that starts happen, whats the point of working hard anymore? Just keep the salivating customers happy with a couple of fancy illusions, a few exagerations and you keep the cycle going. Maybe thats why Microsoft just arn't finishing their software anymore. Whats more, the good companies that do produce quality stuff will be the underdogs: the companies that know they have to come up with the goods in order to break through microsoft's hard wall of marketing and so they will work hard on them and finish them.

The trouble is that if someone like apple does manage to dominate over microsoft they will stop working, sit back, and relax. Just like mircrosoft do.

The trouble is that if someone like apple does manage to dominate over microsoft they will stop working, sit back, and relax. Just like mircrosoft do.I suppose a better solution would be something like what we've got in the graphics card or processor market, two dominant companies with the power constantly shifting. Competetion (generally) keeps the price down and the quality up.

IE7 is not that bad. It feels nice to the touch and MS has now bothered to implement new features such as tabs to keep up with firefox and the likes. They just never bothered to finish the job. I could swear that the official release is exactly the same as their first beta. I still get exactly the same random messages when I try and load non-specific sites and some of them still refuse to just go, forcing me to end task the whole browser. At least Opera works, thats all. I use firefox, however, because Opera displays some pages really strangely.IE7 is out of date - it does not display websites correctly as it does not understand a lot of CSS. I don't understand why they decided to make their browser crap but they did. That's Microsoft for you.

I suppose a better solution would be something like what we've got in the graphics card or processor market, two dominant companies with the power constantly shifting. Competetion (generally) keeps the price down and the quality up.exactly. the thing is, microsoft has copyrights on everything that makes windows able ot run as it does. competition is a great way to keep companies running well, but there's no way for competition to run when microsoft can own exclusive rights to everything that lets windows run. it just isn't practical anymore for people to make games and programs for Mac or Linux because they'd have to literally make everything twice. if microsoft would relinquish a portion of the coding that would allow others to make changes to their OSs that would allow games to be programmed once and edited as they are with the consoles, then we'd have some competition going on. unfortunately, that's not likely.

Yes and no. You've got to remember that Microsoft absolutely dominate the OS market, so hackers are going to focus on Windows. If as many hackers focused on Mac OSX or even Linux I bet they would find bugs just the same.

I simply don't accept that. Yes, Microsoft gets targeted by hacers and the like, but to be fair, Microsoft deliberately added a "feature" to Media Player allowing certain music files to contian executable code that would be run silently whenever the file was played. And they did the same thic accidentally using JPEG files. They did the same thing again in Outlook. With the preview pane activated there was no way to stop it.

Which was more stupid? Really I have no idea. I could write a JPEG parser that was secure. Microsoft ought to be able to do it.

Someone, can't remember who or where, made the point about Apache being the dominant web server, yet it's only ISS I've ever heard of with big security flaws. Wether this is because what I hear is bias towards apache, I can't tell, but I suspect it isn't.

Thought I'd throw that in.

I simply don't accept that. Yes, Microsoft gets targeted by hacers and the like, but to be fair, Microsoft deliberately added a "feature" to Media Player allowing certain music files to contian executable code that would be run silently whenever the file was played. And they did the same thic accidentally using JPEG files. They did the same thing again in Outlook. With the preview pane activated there was no way to stop it.
I won't deny stupidity on Microsoft's part for not anticipating that that hackers would target the "feature" and exploit it, but if Microsoft considered it a feature they must have had a reason for putting it in. And if they had a reason for putting in, they're adding features which they feel will be useful to people, and that's good.

I won't deny stupidity on Microsoft's part for not anticipating that that hackers would target the "feature" and exploit it, but if Microsoft considered it a feature they must have had a reason for putting it in. And if they had a reason for putting in, they're adding features which they feel will be useful to people, and that's good.You are assuming that majority of microsoft programmers are sane.

On the gaming side, I wanna find out what the whole Windows Vista <-> Xbox 360 thing that's so vaguely discussed is.

On the gaming side, I wanna find out what the whole Windows Vista <-> Xbox 360 thing that's so vaguely discussed is.what do you mean find out what it is? we'll be able to play PC games against people on XBox live. what else is there to know?

I won't deny stupidity on Microsoft's part for not anticipating that that hackers would target the "feature" and exploit it, but if Microsoft considered it a feature they must have had a reason for putting it in. And if they had a reason for putting in, they're adding features which they feel will be useful to people, and that's good.
It's not the features themselves so much as the execution. (I had the word "implementation" there but I like the double meaning thing.) Macros are useful in Office, but ones that can invisibly alter arbitrary files are dangerous. Preview panes are useful, but ones that can execute code are dangerous. Music files are useful, but ones that can execute code are dangerous.

And they're so obviously dangerous and so easily made safe that there's no excuse for it.

what do you mean find out what it is? we'll be able to play PC games against people on XBox live. what else is there to know? Or does he mean the fact that Xbox 360 is basicly a stripped down locked up version of a gaming computer? It even has USB ports for the controllers.

what do you mean find out what it is? we'll be able to play PC games against people on XBox live. what else is there to know?Well last time I heard about it, it was nothing more than "you can see your xbox live stats on a pc now! more coming up" :p

Well last time I heard about it, it was nothing more than "you can see your xbox live stats on a pc now! more coming up" :pooooooh, ok then. well yeah, the end result is that we'll be able to play PC games and XBox games on one server. I think the first one to use the tech will be ShadowRun.

ooooooh, ok then. well yeah, the end result is that we'll be able to play PC games and XBox games on one server. I think the first one to use the tech will be ShadowRun.

You know, that IS cool!

Surely on FPSs the pc players will completely anilate anyone without a mouse?

Surely on FPSs the pc players will completely anilate anyone without a mouse?

Wouldn't be too sure about that, have you seen some people play FPS' with a controller???

Wouldn't be too sure about that, have you seen some people play FPS' with a controller???

I've never seen anyone really good play, but they still won't be physcially able to beat a really good mouse user, you'd need more sensitivity than is avliable with a joystick in order to move the crosshair fast enough, surely?

I have on the other hand seen a bunch of PC users play an fps against each other on a gamecube. That was funny!

I've never seen anyone really good play, but they still won't be physcially able to beat a really good mouse user, you'd need more sensitivity than is avliable with a joystick in order to move the crosshair fast enough, surely?You'll be probably be able to opt out PC/360 users from your servers.

I have on the other hand seen a bunch of PC users play an fps against each other on a gamecube. That was funny! Oh thats so annoying. Every time i go over to my friends house to play halo 2 I end up getting so aggrivated because I cant aim and turn as easily and the world just suddenly seems so disorientated. It needs some getting used to.

Surely on FPSs the pc players will completely anilate anyone without a mouse?ShadowRun is a FPS game and thats what everyone at gamespot wants to know as well. apparently though, they had some games with XBox users and PC users and they really couldn't tell who was playing with what. whatever they've done supposedly works well, but I'll wait and see, personally.

You know, you could always hook a keyboard to your console :eek:

But we're getting slightly off-topic.

...but they finally got rid of the ugly green start button!

AHEM (http://www.wincustomize.com/) :p

You know, you could always hook a keyboard to your console :eek: You aim and turn with a keyboard? :confused:

ShadowRun is a FPS game and thats what everyone at gamespot wants to know as well. apparently though, they had some games with XBox users and PC users and they really couldn't tell who was playing with what. whatever they've done supposedly works well, but I'll wait and see, personally. This is presumably because Xbox users are actually used to their controllers. Whilst the mouse is still easier, the gap between the two controllers could probably be shortened quite considerably. Especially if your playing with a beginner on a computer and an El1t3 on the xbox.

You aim and turn with a keyboard? :confused:

In some games, yes.

In some games, yes. Yeh. Especially if you are a cheapskate and want to play multiplayer on the same computer. It works well if the guy using the mouse uses the breadth of the numb* pad and and the other person uses the rest of the keypad for both aiming, moving and using things etc.

*joke intended.

Yeh. Especially if you are a cheapskate and want to play multiplayer on the same computer. It works well if the guy using the mouse uses the breadth of the numb* pad and and the other person uses the rest of the keypad for both aiming, moving and using things etc.

*joke intended.

haha...ha....YOU FAIL AT JOKES!

Not my point. My point is you can play fps multiplayer with one keyboard pretty easily if you really wanted to.

But as we can see, people would rather laugh at someone's misfortune/crappyjoke than acknowledge a point. So now that point shall be forgotten, while the crappy joke will live on in our memories and every so often various forum members will throw it in your face. Ho ho ho.

Anyways, I would have thought it'd be pretty hard to play an fps with just the keyboard. Surely you wouldn't be able to turn as fast and suchlike?

Didn't the original Doom use just a keyboard?

But as we can see, people would rather laugh at someone's misfortune/crappyjoke than acknowledge a point. So now that point shall be forgotten, while the crappy joke will live on in our memories and every so often various forum members will throw it in your face. Ho ho ho.

Anyways, I would have thought it'd be pretty hard to play an fps with just the keyboard. Surely you wouldn't be able to turn as fast and suchlike? I have three brothers. We managed to play a four-way split screen of serious sam once using the keyboard and two controllers. It worked wanders. You get used to using keys to move around after a while. Its actually quite similar to using the d-pad (i think thats what its called; the lil joystick) on a controller.

Anyways, I would have thought it'd be pretty hard to play an fps with just the keyboard. Surely you wouldn't be able to turn as fast and suchlike?I suspect that's how you play an fps on a console.

I suspect that's how you play an fps on a console.
Blasphemy!

Obviously a FPS game designed to be played only with a keyboard would be more forgiving than one made to make use of a mouse. A classic example would be Wolfenstein 3D.

Ok ok, I take back my comment.

Didn't the original Doom use just a keyboard?

Nah, it uses a mouse too.

Ok ok, I take back my comment.



Nah, it uses a mouse too.

I've never seen anyone use a mouse for Doom. Any I've never seen anyone complain about the controls, either, so it must work. that's the point.

I used to play Wolf3D on just a keyboard. Kickass!

Doom does have mouse suport, but it has no merits.

I've never seen anyone use a mouse for Doom. Any I've never seen anyone complain about the controls, either, so it must work. that's the point.
Most people dont realise you can as usually it doesnt work (for some reason)
It is a stupid argument anyway, Ive never heard anyone seriously complain about being hurled into the sun but they wouldnt choose it as a holiday...
And when Doom was out, no fps used mouse, so they wouldnt know better.

I HAVE used a mouse for doom, it is much better (imho, obviously)

It is a stupid argument anyway, Ive never heard anyone seriously complain about being hurled into the sun but they wouldnt choose it as a holiday...

That's ridiculous. I have known people play Doom with the keyboard and not complain. I have not known people be hurled into the sun and not complain.

What we can learn from this is that if you don't hear anybody complaining about something, it can't excist or be true.

Millions of blacks in USA put up with slavery and racism for decades, many didnt (bother to) complain

Also, refer back to my other point that people hadnt seen that there was a better option as the better option had not previously existed.

For example: people dont complain that... hard to think of something people dont complain about :p... books being too heavy, yet isnt a book that weighs relatively NOTHING going to be preferable.

Not a great example, Im tired :)

More like people didn't complain about having to clean dishes and cloathing by hand before someone invented machines to do the job.

I used to play Quake 2 with keyboard only, I used A and Z to aim up and down, and the arrow keys to move. It's a better example than Doom since you can actually aim in Quake 2 which makes the mouse signifigantly more usefull.

Why, two guys of the same age and same skill level have just walked into my room. What's this? They're getting ready to play an fps over two computers. Lemme have a look. It seems that one of them is only using a keyboard. Apparently he has been playing that way all his life. Lets go check out the other guy. This guy's using a keyboard and a mouse. He says he has been playing that way all his life. Well, isn't this very exciting!

I'm now open for taking bets on who will win.

Since they are playing co-op, the I bet they both win.

I don't know who your sources are, but I suggest you fire them quickly. Co-op indeed...Of course, it means I've got a profit already, so I'm not really complaining.

More like people didn't complain about having to clean dishes and cloathing by hand before someone invented machines to do the job.

I used to play Quake 2 with keyboard only, I used A and Z to aim up and down, and the arrow keys to move. It's a better example than Doom since you can actually aim in Quake 2 which makes the mouse signifigantly more usefull.
Ah thanks thats better :D


But you can use the mouse in Quake2? (which im playing right now! a coincedence?!?! I think NOT!)

Weird.. I was hoping to find more information about Vista in the last few posts (I cjeck like once a week), but you guys are chatting about game controllers and game controls of a certain shooter :confused:

Weird.. I was hoping to find more information about Vista in the last few posts (I cjeck like once a week), but you guys are chatting about game controllers and game controls of a certain shooter :confused:

...so let's cut it out and wait for me to get my Vista copy... (the guy I'm supposed to get it from is on vacation dammit!)

That's ridiculous. I have known people play Doom with the keyboard and not complain. I have not known people be hurled into the sun and not complain. I've never known anyone to be hurled at the sun full stop.

I've been to the sun. Got a nice tan too.

Weird.. I was hoping to find more information about Vista in the last few posts (I cjeck like once a week), but you guys are chatting about game controllers and game controls of a certain shooter :confused:Welcome to the forum. :p

Before you go and post it, I'm not pointing out that you're new, but how you're acting as if you are. Offtopic is pretty much unavoidable in this forum.

About Vista, my Dad's got 10 lisences from attending some microsoft conference thingy, and he downloaded the DVD today, so sometime over Christmas I'll bung it on an old hard disc to see what it's like. Running some benchmarks to see what it's preformance is in certain games will be interesting too!

I don't know wether my Geforce 4200 will run vista's Aero or anything though, I'll have to find out.

Welcome to the forum. :p

Before you go and post it, I'm not pointing out that you're new, but how you're acting as if you are. Offtopic is pretty much unavoidable in this forum.I posted in my hope to get the offtopic-ness away, because I, for one, am interested.