wine will actually run on windoze vista
-
-
who gives a **** anyway.... do you really need more than 60 fps? i've got vsync on, im capped at 60 and it runs perfect online, which is all I care about....Comment
-
- "who" != "you" != "I"Originally posted by porky1981 View Post
- Is it acceptable to play with less than 60fps ?
- Can your advice be applied to any machine, or just some?
Edit:
Riiiight ...QX6850 Extreme 3.33 Ghz (OC), 8800 Ultra 768 Mb ...Comment
-
I like that sig of yours, Benfica
Comment
-
Originally posted by porky1981 View Post
Might be true on a TFT, but i have got a CRT, wich runs 1024x768 at 160Hz.
On this resolution with this Hz frequenzy, 60FPS is slideshow. Than the response time of the game is extreme worse.Comment
-
I use Vista.
It looks better than XP, it is more logical than XP, it's nicer to use than XP, it's better than XP.
No more random operating issues, no more random unexplained crashes.
I have been using Vista for the best part of a good year now and I can honestly say I would NEVER go back to XP.
Do not knock it till you have tried it, sure performance in games take a hit, but anything over 60FPS the game is enjoyable.
My only issue I have with Vista is the slow copying/Unzip times though that is fixed by using another program to do it.
@ Benefica, your replies and signature imply that your are too poor to afford decent hardware or envious of others with it.
I have a QX9650, 8800GT SLi, 780i ASUS P5N-T Motherboard and I use Vista Ultimate, knocking somebody because they invest in expensive hardware is imho, quite pathetic.Comment
-
all i care is the performance gain... i dont need an os to block all my games,applications and cant possibly let them execute without going to windows files and do some changes....
i dont need eye candy or 3D view of the window.
All i care is a fast and performant os with a decent quality which vista has none...
If you want to go for the eye candy os choose vista ultimate
If you want to go for the performant and bugless os choose Xp proffesional
pure and simple.
Oh, ive got vista ultimate and genuine too but after 3 days i switched it back to windows xp, in vista i got 70fps in ut2k4, in xp i got 208 fps...
so yeah xp is better for performance...
Maybe with some updates vista will get better but till then i wont reinstall vista and ill keep Xp running onlyComment
-
if you want performance you should use Win9x instead of XP and win2000. Windows NT is a bad performer, too.Originally posted by Eugen View PostComment
-
While they might imply some envy, the main thing they imply is a certain boredom with people having to spout their insane rig all over the placeOriginally posted by 5yzygy View Post
(And my computer is quite good, plays steadily high FPS in max settings, in case you were wondering.)Comment
-
For me it goes something like this:
Hay, “try vista” its great!
OK…. sits down and start using vista. Two minutes later, gets up and punch guy in face.
Why am I using vista? Don’t answer that. I’m just saying I have found vista to be a pain in the butt. My brother has it and can’t even change the back ground picture. Come on! for something that simple that should only take 10 seconds and he can’t even change it! This is just an example of how other things went that should only take 10 seconds. It wouldn’t be so bad if what ever we were trying to do would do want we wanted, but more times then not we were unsuccessful.
Anyways my brother just got xp. I offer to set it up for him, but he wanted to do it. It took him 3-4 hours just to see hope that xp was going to install and that was still with some assistance. HaHa. Oh well, I could of had a nice clean back up for him, butt at least now I can support him over the phone and will now gladly sit down and tweak his pc.Comment
-
Well, things like changing the background picture and generally setting up stuff (hardware, system settings, ...) is different, but that doesn't necessarily make it worse. Particularly changing the background picture actually takes less clicks in Vista than in XP, if you know where to look
(I made tons of posts bashing Vista before, time to even it out a bit)Comment
-
If you want performance :- use a GNU/Linux distribution ( gentoo preferably )
If you want eye candy :- use a GNU/Linux distribution
If you want a stable and "crash free" system :- use a GNU/Linux distribution
If you want a user friendly interface :- use a GNU/Linux distribution ( with a kde desktop )
This windoze X vs windoze X argument is like comparing turds - all are **** , it really is as simple as that.....Comment
-
Aye SpitFire, but what I really want is proper games support, and unfortunately the game distributors haven't quite realized that publishing games for Linux would be a viable alternative as well.
It's a vicious circle: Few games for Linux, thus people have Windows gaming systems (or dualboot to Windows for gaming), thus making games for Linux isn't profitable, thus there are few games for Linux.Comment
-
there are a few native games for GNU/Linux , think too - should microsoft have this sort of hold over gamers and users alike ? if you think no - stand up and be counted!Originally posted by haslo View PostComment
-
It's BenficaOriginally posted by 5yzygy
1) it's just a parody.
2) One high end machine doesn't represent a large number of mid-range ones.
3) I used to be a compulsive upgrader, spent tons of money and end result has been the same. Hardware made "obsolete" (just because M$ and others don't bother) and frustation.
It would be way worse if I'd go always for the very high end, instead of e.g. overclocking.
4) I have 3 PC and 1 laptop, 2 cars, an already paid T4 flat, etc...
5) I'm not feeling too clever on posting 4) just because someone said "I'm envious" or whatever
This is a Vista vs XP thread. I was not envious of the dude, I was claiming that what he was saying proves nothing, because the rig digests well Vista overhead. One high end rig doesn't reflect the experience of other high end, and others of all sorts.Comment
Comment