Battlefield 3 Relieving Windows XP From Duty

[Danpascooch]

7 is Vista, since I have Vista I don't see why I should waste $120 on the same thing, not like XP-Vista where there was a clear upgrade (abiet waiting till updates made it usable)

LoL, yeah, 7 is Vista. You must be a real IT Pro.

Going by what I've seen with my computer vs my laptop that has 7 I frankly am not seeing a major difference, yes theres meant to be improved system resources but frankly Vista works perfectly for me, its stable, doesn't have any resource issues and I play games without any issues. With Vista patched up their pretty close to being the same thing, minus some changes in UI and slight improvements under the hood which I don't see as $120 worth when both my machines work perfectly as is.
And technically they are the same, 7 is Vista but tweeked, its not as heavy a rebuild or change as Vista was for XP. It takes more than a UI and some tweeks under the hood to make it worth $120, esp when Vista is finally stable and efficient.
EDIT: quick point, I'm refering to what I want/need in windows and comparing to weather its worth spending the $ that can go towards other things I need to pay for, I will be getting 7 eventually, but as already pointed out being just Vista improved, I'm in no hurry to get it.

The difference is that it doesn't shit itself and explode every five minutes.

Whether or not the colors look prettier pales in comparison to the fact that Windows 7 works properly whereas Vista is lucky to be able to run ANYTHING properly

Vista has never 'shit itself', crashed or had any issues with games/programs for me. Are you sure your using it on a computer thats capable of running it? What version of Vista were you using, and with what software?

Reguardless of stability improvements, Windows 7 is still just Vista improved, even Microsoft admits its an incremental update, that being that it's the same OS but they've improved parts here and there and maybe changed the UI alil to look different but under the hood its mostly the same thing, that's what I was refering to being the same.

The fact you may have had issues with it doesn't mean Vista is shit and anyone that uses it is stupid, you may have just had a bad experience, and just as you have the right to use and like Win 7, I have the right to be happy with Vista, since anything that runs on 7 will run on Vista since their the same thing as far as the core system and programs are concerned.

No, they are not, they really aren't.

Here's an example: User Account Control. Look it up, it comes "on" by default on Vista PC's, and basically gives nothing rights to create or move files without running it in a special "administrator" mode, this causes a huge number of programs to fail at installation, and some while running, fuck, you can't even get Ventrilo working without disabling it.

In Windows 7, UAC was rebuilt to remove almost all of the problems. Yes you can disable UAC in Vista, but the fact that such a ridiculous feature defaults to ON is an example of the fucked up nature of the OS, and there are hundreds others that I'm not going to list unless you want to needlessly prolong this discussion because I set out to post on a forum, not write a novel. I do know what I'm doing, and despite countless hours of registry tweaks and troubleshooting, there are still some things that will not, and can not work on the Vista OS.

Those little "under the hood tweaks" are the things that make Windows 7 work where Vista doesn't. There is a REASON that Windows 7 is universally accepted as a much better OS and a vast improvement, it's because it's true, and a quick google search will confirm that if you've been living under a rock and haven't heard it from like 100 news sources already.

Your argument that "Windows 7 is just an improved Vista" is absolutely true and proves my point, Windows 7 is an improved vista in the way that XP is an improved ME, and every OS is an improved version of the previous one, provided it didn't drop the ball like Vista did. Where exactly do you draw the line between "New OS" and "OS That is not quite new"? Is there some secret numerical standard I didn't know about? Because I think the performance change from Win Vista to Win 7 is much more important from the visual change from Win XP to Win Vista, which actually moved BACKWARDS as far as performance is concerned.

Yes, Vista might be more stable now thanks to backpatching solutions developed for Win 7, but that is hardly the important point here, the fact is, a natively working and fluent system will always be more stable than a backpatched piece of shit.

I'm actually pursuing a degree in programming right now, so any "user error" argument isn't really going to work for you here, I know what I'm doing, and I have the closest thing to a universal consensus that the internet will ever achieve backing up my opinion that Windows 7 is a vast and powerful improvement over Vista.

 

[RicoADF]

No, they are not, they really aren't.

Here's an example: User Account Control. Look it up, it comes "on" by default on Vista PC's, and basically gives nothing rights to create or move files without running it in a special "administrator" mode, this causes a huge number of programs to fail at installation, and some while running, fuck, you can't even get Ventrilo working without disabling it.

In Windows 7, UAC was rebuilt to remove almost all of the problems. Yes you can disable UAC in Vista, but the fact that such a ridiculous feature defaults to ON is an example of the fucked up nature of the OS, and there are hundreds others that I'm not going to list unless you want to needlessly prolong this discussion because I set out to post on a forum, not write a novel. I do know what I'm doing, and despite countless hours of registry tweaks and troubleshooting, there are still some things that will not, and can not work on the Vista OS.

Those little "under the hood tweaks" are the things that make Windows 7 work where Vista doesn't. There is a REASON that Windows 7 is universally accepted as a much better OS and a vast improvement, it's because it's true, and a quick google search will confirm that if you've been living under a rock and haven't heard it from like 100 news sources already.

Your argument that "Windows 7 is just an improved Vista" is absolutely true and proves my point, Windows 7 is an improved vista in the way that XP is an improved ME, and every OS is an improved version of the previous one, provided it didn't drop the ball like Vista did. Where exactly do you draw the line between "New OS" and "OS That is not quite new"? Is there some secret numerical standard I didn't know about? Because I think the performance change from Win Vista to Win 7 is much more important from the visual change from Win XP to Win Vista, which actually moved BACKWARDS as far as performance is concerned.

Yes, Vista might be more stable now thanks to backpatching solutions developed for Win 7, but that is hardly the important point here, the fact is, a natively working and fluent system will always be more stable than a backpatched piece of shit.

I'm actually pursuing a degree in programming right now, so any "user error" argument isn't really going to work for you here, I know what I'm doing, and I have the closest thing to a universal consensus that the internet will ever achieve backing up my opinion that Windows 7 is a vast and powerful improvement over Vista.

UAC hasn't caused me many if any problems, at worse I just set a program to give it admin rights and any issues are resolved, but yes it does need some playing around that alot of people don't know about (not saying you don't). As I said, for me it works fine for now, and while yes Win 7 is an improvement (altho I dont like the new libraries stuff), its not such a big one that I can't wait a few more months and spend the $ elsewhere. My whole point was that its Windows 7 with improvements, and thus Vista will do for now. You've accepted thats what I'm saying, your opinion on Vista is yours, it doesn't bother me weather you like it or not, just wanted to make it clear that they are the same.
To your question on what makes an OS new or different, it needs a major overhaul of the base code. Windows can be grouped into 3 or 4 'groups', that being Win 3/3.1, Windows 95/98/ME, Windows NT/2000/XP, Windows Vista/7. The OS's within each group are mostly identical with some additions with newer versions, however software that works on on will work on the others in that group, so a win 2000 driver/game will almost guarenteed to work on XP, where as going from a group to another is when theres an issue (eg: XP - Vista/7), and thats where Vista had its issues.

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

Yay Windows 7!

 

[Sh0ckFyre]

Nice to see DICE actually pushing DirectX 10 and 11 on this generation. Alas, DX9 had a swell run, but its time to see the future. Also (slightly off topic), I'm probably going to be the only one to come in my pants when I play Crysis 2 in DX11.

A console version would be a tad bit strange. if Frostbite 2 is coded for DX10 and 11, how would the consoles run it? Unless they use a modified Frostbite 1 (DX9) for it. Or maybe there'll be a hack to run it on DX9? Time will tell. Just wait until Windows 2067 comes out and we have DirectX 24.1 at our beck and call.

tl;dr Hooray for taking a graphical step forward!

 

[Danpascooch]

No, they are not, they really aren't.

Here's an example: User Account Control. Look it up, it comes "on" by default on Vista PC's, and basically gives nothing rights to create or move files without running it in a special "administrator" mode, this causes a huge number of programs to fail at installation, and some while running, fuck, you can't even get Ventrilo working without disabling it.

In Windows 7, UAC was rebuilt to remove almost all of the problems. Yes you can disable UAC in Vista, but the fact that such a ridiculous feature defaults to ON is an example of the fucked up nature of the OS, and there are hundreds others that I'm not going to list unless you want to needlessly prolong this discussion because I set out to post on a forum, not write a novel. I do know what I'm doing, and despite countless hours of registry tweaks and troubleshooting, there are still some things that will not, and can not work on the Vista OS.

Those little "under the hood tweaks" are the things that make Windows 7 work where Vista doesn't. There is a REASON that Windows 7 is universally accepted as a much better OS and a vast improvement, it's because it's true, and a quick google search will confirm that if you've been living under a rock and haven't heard it from like 100 news sources already.

Your argument that "Windows 7 is just an improved Vista" is absolutely true and proves my point, Windows 7 is an improved vista in the way that XP is an improved ME, and every OS is an improved version of the previous one, provided it didn't drop the ball like Vista did. Where exactly do you draw the line between "New OS" and "OS That is not quite new"? Is there some secret numerical standard I didn't know about? Because I think the performance change from Win Vista to Win 7 is much more important from the visual change from Win XP to Win Vista, which actually moved BACKWARDS as far as performance is concerned.

Yes, Vista might be more stable now thanks to backpatching solutions developed for Win 7, but that is hardly the important point here, the fact is, a natively working and fluent system will always be more stable than a backpatched piece of shit.

I'm actually pursuing a degree in programming right now, so any "user error" argument isn't really going to work for you here, I know what I'm doing, and I have the closest thing to a universal consensus that the internet will ever achieve backing up my opinion that Windows 7 is a vast and powerful improvement over Vista.

UAC hasn't caused me many if any problems, at worse I just set a program to give it admin rights and any issues are resolved, but yes it does need some playing around that alot of people don't know about (not saying you don't). As I said, for me it works fine for now, and while yes Win 7 is an improvement (altho I dont like the new libraries stuff), its not such a big one that I can't wait a few more months and spend the $ elsewhere. My whole point was that its Windows 7 with improvements, and thus Vista will do for now. You've accepted thats what I'm saying, your opinion on Vista is yours, it doesn't bother me weather you like it or not, just wanted to make it clear that they are the same.
To your question on what makes an OS new or different, it needs a major overhaul of the base code. Windows can be grouped into 3 or 4 'groups', that being Win 3/3.1, Windows 95/98/ME, Windows NT/2000/XP, Windows Vista/7. The OS's within each group are mostly identical with some additions with newer versions, however software that works on on will work on the others in that group, so a win 2000 driver/game will almost guarenteed to work on XP, where as going from a group to another is when theres an issue (eg: XP - Vista/7), and thats where Vista had its issues.

I can agree with those groupings as the major overhaul points in the Windows OS, though I don't agree with the idea that they are essentially 95% the same, or that Windows 7 isn't a major improvement.

That said, I did jump ship when Windows 7 first released and at that time Vista was a buggy piece of shit, meaning I haven't been able to see it in action recently except perhaps on my Mother's Dell which let's face it, it's a Dell, she's just lucky the fucking thing doesn't literally start on fire and explode sending feces everywhere while she's using it.

Perhaps it wasn't completely fair to judge current-day Vista to current-day Win7 without observing Windows Vista on a decent computer in almost a half year. I still believe however, that the majority of any stabilizing updates that may have turned 6 month old Vista into current possibly less buggy Vista (again, I'm taking your word for that) are a near direct result of the development of Windows 7.

While I still oppose the idea that the upgrade isn't worth it, I guess it depends on whether the current machine you're using needs any upgrades direly, and what options you have available for paying for Windows 7. For example, I can get Windows 7 Professional completely free (download or disc in mail) through the "Microsoft Developer Academic Alliance (MSDNAA)" at my college. Don't ask me where the 'N' in "MSDNAA" comes from, I have no idea, lol. I'm assuming you don't have an option like this or else you would have to literally be batshit insane to not take the upgrade, but you should look into whether you can get some sort of discount for being a student or something, there are plenty of discounts available, and I'd be surprised if you couldn't find one that fit you.

At any rate, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that when compared at an equivalent stage of release (for example: 2 months after Vista release and 2 months after Win 7 release) the difference is absolutely massive. I wouldn't be surprised if the lines between OS upgrades start to blur with the availability of backpatching in our day and age, but as long as the patches appear to be a result of backpatching solutions made for the next OS, then I consider it worth it to get something that is natively made with the fixes, rather than held together by a series of patches.

 

[RicoADF]

I can agree with those groupings as the major overhaul points in the Windows OS, though I don't agree with the idea that they are essentially 95% the same, or that Windows 7 isn't a major improvement.

That said, I did jump ship when Windows 7 first released and at that time Vista was a buggy piece of shit, meaning I haven't been able to see it in action recently except perhaps on my Mother's Dell which let's face it, it's a Dell, she's just lucky the fucking thing doesn't literally start on fire and explode sending feces everywhere while she's using it.

Perhaps it wasn't completely fair to judge current-day Vista to current-day Win7 without observing Windows Vista on a decent computer in almost a half year. I still believe however, that the majority of any stabilizing updates that may have turned 6 month old Vista into current possibly less buggy Vista (again, I'm taking your word for that) are a near direct result of the development of Windows 7.

While I still oppose the idea that the upgrade isn't worth it, I guess it depends on whether the current machine you're using needs any upgrades direly, and what options you have available for paying for Windows 7. For example, I can get Windows 7 Professional completely free (download or disc in mail) through the "Microsoft Developer Academic Alliance (MSDNAA)" at my college. Don't ask me where the 'N' in "MSDNAA" comes from, I have no idea, lol. I'm assuming you don't have an option like this or else you would have to literally be batshit insane to not take the upgrade, but you should look into whether you can get some sort of discount for being a student or something, there are plenty of discounts available, and I'd be surprised if you couldn't find one that fit you.

At any rate, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that when compared at an equivalent stage of release (for example: 2 months after Vista release and 2 months after Win 7 release) the difference is absolutely massive. I wouldn't be surprised if the lines between OS upgrades start to blur with the availability of backpatching in our day and age, but as long as the patches appear to be a result of backpatching solutions made for the next OS, then I consider it worth it to get something that is natively made with the fixes, rather than held together by a series of patches.

I can tell you Vista today is far better than origional, I've had to format it once or twice and a clean install is so slow and crap I can see where the issues were, but a few SP later and its smooth and reliable
I will be getting Windows 7, but it costs $120 AUD for the OEM Home Premium, when I have a spare $120 I will get it, but since Vista works and is now reliable I'm not in a mad rush to jump ship
It's both due to $ and also a habbit of mine to wait a year or so to let the first SP come out before I get the next OS, means any major bugs are resolved and most software/games have been patched if theirs any issues.

 

[gl1koz3]

To be honest, Vista/7 is just a damn slugfest compared to XP because of .Net overuse. The core stuff seems to work smoother, though. As for those who think 7 is oh-so-much different from Vista, they are basically the same. It's just one of them came with the fixes pre-installed.

 

[Katana314]

The one thing I have noticed with 7, as compared to XP and Vista, is that it doesn't seem to get the gradual, month-by-month slowdown previous versions of Windows did. I've had this one installation for over a year, and it still seems fairly responsive; whereas a lot of hardcore gamers seem to need to reformat their computer every few months to keep that performance.

I'm sorry to people on XP that can't play the game now, and I hope EVERY game doesn't do this, but I'm glad that someone has made a decisive leap forward in deciding to use technology. Thus far, I've seen most DX10 demos as useless when their developers are keeping DX9 support around. When it's DX10-ONLY, we see some interesting things, like in Just Cause 2.

 

[toapat]

Why are PC gamers so attached to XP again?

I'm surprised this OS wasn't phased out of PC gaming years ago...

because windows XP in exchange for slightly larger load times, uses all resources it has intelligently. running anything on windows Vista or 7 takes at least twice as much power, and if you open task manager, you will always see the CPU operating at 70-100% capacity, what clearly on XP is the demarcation for program crash point, is the normal work load Vista and 7, while the background programs burn resources that would be better used for your game.

 

[MrTub]

Why are PC gamers so attached to XP again?

I'm surprised this OS wasn't phased out of PC gaming years ago...

because windows XP in exchange for slightly larger load times, uses all resources it has intelligently. running anything on windows Vista or 7 takes at least twice as much power, and if you open task manager, you will always see the CPU operating at 70-100% capacity, what clearly on XP is the demarcation for program crash point, is the normal work load Vista and 7, while the background programs burn resources that would be better used for your game.

bull. Atm my cpu is at 2% (windows 7) And it doesnt take twice as much power.