|
|
| Page 2 of 2 |
|
|
 Posted: Sat, 6th Oct 2007 20:40 Post subject: |
|
 |
| LeoNatan wrote: | So, apparently, if you point out that someone's wrong, and what he says is not true is now considered fanboism.
Aight. |
How deluded can you be, you've proven none of my statements wrong. The fact is the only thing you're doing is saying that someone elses bad experience with VISTA is "incompetency" and/or "lies". That's your entire argument.
You say you point out when someone's wrong, well - you live in a delusional world, and that's no problem. Just don't think I will take you seriously when you continue to spurt your usual "I proved you wrong" when in fact you just keep thinking VISTA is the next infallable God.
If VISTA was as good as you're claiming, then how come so many (sic) have a bad experience with it? Don't blame it on poor hardware, I know you like to think that anyone that runs VISTA poorly has bad hardware, and you have no basis whatsoever for that, so you have to make shit up to make an argument. That tells me something about your ability to deduce whether something is right or in your case - wrong.
I have yet to counter-argue the fact that YOUR vista works fine with YOUR hardware, I would be an equal fool if I would. Since clearly it works well enough for you that you would argue that everyone else who doesn't have your VISTA-experience are incompetent or have lacking hardware.
Get over yourself.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 6th Oct 2007 22:03 Post subject: |
|
|
| ManMountain wrote: | The only titles I've encountered a performance hit are with Colin McRae: DiRT and Company Of Heroes: Opposing Fronts. More down to my aging hardware than the OS I'm running though. Neither blew me away, so no big loss to not keeping them installed.
With Crysis and Gears of War on the horizon, hope to be replacing my current CPU for a Q6600 but holding off getting a new GPU for just now.
But with my currently installed games, I'd have to agree with the benchmark linked atop, Vista gaming performance is near to or equal to XP. Shame it's 10 months later. They certainly took their time getting round to it, but Nvidia/AMD-ATI must have been burning many a midnight candle to achieve this feat when you consider the underlying changes in Vista. Course, Microsoft have been busy releasing patches to aid that improvement along.
Perhaps with more benchmarking results appearing or, that, plus the fabled but no doubt disappointment-for-many Vista SP1, folk may be inclined to give Vista a try for themselves... or not as the case may be. |
Jericho ran fine under vista but damn, when I tried world of conflict I had to turn down more than half of the options I had on max in XP :\
Performance has definitely come a long way since it's beginning though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73259
Location: Ramat HaSharon, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Sun, 7th Oct 2007 01:03 Post subject: |
|
|
| dominae wrote: | I have yet to counter-argue the fact that YOUR vista works fine with YOUR hardware, I would be an equal fool if I would. Since clearly it works well enough for you that you would argue that everyone else who doesn't have your VISTA-experience are incompetent or have lacking hardware.
Get over yourself. |
I had a bad experience with Vista on my main desktop PC, and I'm not using it there atm (I am on my laptop). But dude, saying performance sucks or that nothing works on it is retarded.
 If you haven't figured it out by now, I was joking about the P4 cpu... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 7th Oct 2007 02:42 Post subject: |
|
|
OSes are so lame! I want an osless pc, so that it can just stand there and complain about nothing to boot. Sweet.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
$en$i
VIP Member
Posts: 3127
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun, 7th Oct 2007 04:59 Post subject: |
|
|
That is weird. How we can have such different perspectives on the performance, and I know it's not just me that has it bad, or not just you that has it good. It seems odd that performance in CS3 with UI etc. would be poor for some, and not for others, because the UI in Ultimate (Aero) would behave the same way in different installations of VISTA.
So would the UI be different with different hardware? There are some discrepancies in here that I really can't make out the logic behind. And what I'm seeing is very different from what you're describing.
I also think fisk should be unbanned.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 17th Oct 2007 17:55 Post subject: |
|
|
lolz, for every 1gb you download or install on vista 2 gb gets used.. The space on the vista disc just disapears into nowhere it seems :S
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 17th Oct 2007 18:39 Post subject: |
|
|
| kenny64 wrote: | | lolz, for every 1gb you download or install on vista 2 gb gets used.. The space on the vista disc just disapears into nowhere it seems :S |
this is linked with system recovery. just turn it off
Look for Studio HiCZoK movies and arts !
AsusP5N-E SLI - Asus 8800 GT 512mb - C2D E6300 2.80ghz - 2x1gb GeiL Ultra 800mhz 4-4-4-12 - Sound Blaster Audigy Se - 500gb WD(always defragmented:D) - 11k 3dMark2006 - X360
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 17th Oct 2007 22:07 Post subject: |
|
|
| PoorLeno wrote: | | OSes are so lame! I want an osless pc, so that it can just stand there and complain about nothing to boot. Sweet. |
rofl |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SycoShaman
VIP Master Jedi
Posts: 24468
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed, 17th Oct 2007 23:06 Post subject: |
|
|
| PoorLeno wrote: | | OSes are so lame! I want an osless pc, so that it can just stand there and complain about nothing to boot. Sweet. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 2 of 2 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
