Topic: Windows Vista -- Will It Run Your Games???

[MysterD]

ExtremeTech runs some games -- such as F.E.A.R., Gothic III, Oblivion, Battlefield 2, Neverwinter 2.

They even got Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory going, after updating to those new StarForce Win Vista drivers.

Now, this one's funny about Sid Meier's Pirates! (2004 remake)....

Sid Meier's Pirates!
The best game of 2004 for me, personally, was Sid Meier's Pirates! (and yes, the exclamation point is part of the name). It's not the most advanced game in terms of technology, but it somehow blends a handful of minigames and activities into a seamless and dynamic world of pillaging, swordfighting, and exploration. It's also so addictive that your "I'll just play for half an hour" will turn into 4 hours in a heartbeat. While it's not exactly brand new, it's still considered a modern game and definitely one I want to be able to fire up from time to time.

When I first clicked the "Install" button on the menu that pops up when you put in the game disc, I got an error message, but it turns out this wasn't Vista's fault, it was mine. I have loaded so many games on this test machine that it has totally filled the 140GB hard drive. After uninstalling a few things, the game installed fine, and I had no problems applying the 1.02 patch. The game proper runs totally fine under Vista, but there's one sort of comical error in Vista's handling of it: the Games Explorer shows the box art from the old 1987 Microprose edition, not the new 2004 remake. Continued...

[scottws]

Heh.  It doesn't just have the old Microprose box art, it has the original games' release date and publisher information.  I wonder if that game would run in Vista?  Yeah, right.

RIP Microprose btw.  I loved that dev/publisher.

[MysterD]

Heh.  It doesn't just have the old Microprose box art, it has the original games' release date and publisher information.  I wonder if that game would run in Vista?  Yeah, right.

That'd be interesting if it ran that old version of Pirates!

[MysterD]

Seems Vista us giving a handful of FPS games some trouble....

PetManimal writes "Computerworld is reporting that gamers who have installed Vista are reporting problems with first person-shooter titles such as CounterStrike, Half-Life 2, Doom 3. and F.E.A.R. (Users have compiled lists of games with Vista issues.) The complaints, which have turned up on gamers' forums, cite crashes and low frame rates. Not surprisingly, the problems relate to graphics hardware and software: 'Experts blame still-flaky software drivers, Vista's complexity, and a dearth of new video cards optimized for Vista's new rendering technology, DirectX 10. That's despite promises from Microsoft that Vista is backwards-compatible with XP's graphic engine, DirectX 9, and that it will support existing games. Meanwhile, games written to take advantage of DirectX 10 have been slow to emerge. And one Nvidia executive predicts that gamers may not routinely see games optimized for DirectX 10 until mid-2008.'" 

[Jedi]

And this is why you do not run out and buy the new OS, you sit back and let everyone else go through the pains of working out the issues. 

[MysterD]

And this is why you do not run out and buy the new OS, you sit back and let everyone else go through the pains of working out the issues. 

It's as if they all paid for Beta-in-a-box.

[Jedi]

It's as if they all paid for Beta-in-a-box.

ah.. no it's not. I know you mean it as a joke but I've used the betas and christ were they slow and... well unfinished. But nothing beats retail release for stress testing and bug finding! But a good rule of thumb with a new OS is to wait for the first SP if you can, I just don't understand why people would pre-order this and line up for it, it's not the new WoW expansion pack people!

[Pugnate]

Well I sorta agree with you guys, but not everyone is a gamer.

Yes as a gamer, it makes no sense to upgrade to Vista yet. But yea it runs significantly faster, except when it is running games.

[Quemaqua]

Vista is shit.  Microsoft just wants you to pay more money for something you in no way need.  The fact that everyone is jumping on this just shows how fucking stupid people are.

[Pugnate]

Well you haven't seen or tried Vista out yet. Everything aside from gaming runs a lot better, because it utilizes your dual core processor.

[Quemaqua]

But I have zero trouble running everything I run already.  And do I really care about paying hundreds of dollars to increase performance in applications that already run at more than satisfactory levels?  After I've only been using XP for a couple of years?

[Pugnate]

You've only had XP for 2 years?

[Quemaqua]

I think maybe 3 1/2.  There was zero reason to upgrade from 98 until I got it free with my laptop, and then I got it again with my new PC.  Once it truly became the standard this made sense.  Now they're trying to get me to buy Vista with artificial incentives and strongarm tactics?  Before the old OS has even outlived its usefulness on any level?  Fuck that bullshit.

[Cobra951]

I feel exactly the same way.  XP brought the wonderful NT core to the masses, and it was truly a step up from the old 16-bit core of Win 9X.  Even so, I took a good year or more to move over to it.  The problem now is that Vista doesn't really improve the essentials in any significant way, and all the growing pains are just beginning, not ending.  Support sucks at every level.  And MS wants you to pay a lot of money to gain, what exactly?  What can't you do with XP, and well, that you can do with Vista?  Jack shit, that's what.  I'm glad in a perverse way that people are having no end of problems.  Maybe they'll learn something from it this time.  Wait, I'm kidding myself.  *Sigh*

[Jedi]

You see Q has the right attitude about upgrading, he didn't do it until he bought a new machine that cam with the new OS. And your right Q why upgrade when you can run everything fine on XP? There's no bloody reason to.
On the other hand I wouldn't write the new OS off until you've used, there are some reasons to upgrade and their are some great improvements but their not particularly compelling, certianly not enough to go through the trouble of upgrading and sorting out all the issues, or even to pay the price of an upgrade.

[scottws]

I thought XP's launch was much smoother.  I installed it before many people I knew even had heard of Windows XP and I thought it was great from the get-go.

But I have heard nothing but problems with Vista.

[MysterD]

I feel exactly the same way.  XP brought the wonderful NT core to the masses, and it was truly a step up from the old 16-bit core of Win 9X.  Even so, I took a good year or more to move over to it.  The problem now is that Vista doesn't really improve the essentials in any significant way, and all the growing pains are just beginning, not ending.  Support sucks at every level.  And MS wants you to pay a lot of money to gain, what exactly?  What can't you do with XP, and well, that you can do with Vista?  Jack shit, that's what.  I'm glad in a perverse way that people are having no end of problems.  Maybe they'll learn something from it this time.  Wait, I'm kidding myself.  *Sigh*

I'm sure DX10 will have some great benefits in the future and all, but not right now. It's WAY too early -- WAY too early! Many games support only DX9 still, so yet we ain't really see what a DX10 ONLY game can do graphically. None are really out right now. If you buy Vista, it's like buying a new video card w/ new features that no game is using yet --- what good is it to shell out all your money so early for? Especially when the product will probably be cheaper, some time from now when you might actually NEED it?

And also, we ain't seen what games that support both Win XP's DX9 and Vista's DX10, so we don't know what the differences are graphically and performance-wise yet really are.

Can we name any games released that ACTUALLY support ONLY Vista and DX10 at all? NO. Halo 2 PC is not out yet (like Halo 2 PC really needs to support DX10 only; it's a damn X-Box port). And Remedy's Alan Wake ain't out yet, either -- probably not until end of 2007, at the earliest for Alan Wake.

As long as some games support DX9 and DX10, like say Crysis and HG: London, who as a gamer will force themselves over to Vista so soon? Not many, if you ask me.

Yeah, too damn early to flop over to Vista; way too early....

[Jedi]

I thought XP's launch was much smoother.  I installed it before many people I knew even had heard of Windows XP and I thought it was great from the get-go.

But I have heard nothing but problems with Vista.

I seem to remember some popular games wouldn't run in XP without some tinkering and patching. I also remember some crap about the run in compataility mode etc etc, oh and the shit storm that the online activation process caused.... XP had it fair share of issues too. The big deal here is the changes made to how the OS handles sound card drivers and the whole DX10 story.

[Cobra951]

The shit storm that the online activation caused is the big reason I stayed away for so long.  (I still have never submitted to it.)  Once I took the plunge, though, I had almost no issues at all with XP.  This is before any service packs too.  The OS was solid out of the starting gate.  Only driver support needed to be firmed up, and that was quick, because of existing support for XP's direct ancestors (2K & NT).

[scottws]

I'm not going to say there weren't issues, Jedi, but I didn't really run into any except when I tried to play X-COM: UFO Defense.  And that game predated Windows XP by quite a bit.

[Jedi]

I'm not going to say there weren't issues, Jedi, but I didn't really run into any except when I tried to play X-COM: UFO Defense.  And that game predated Windows XP by quite a bit.

Don't get me wrong Scott I never had issues when I made the leap, I just remember a few grumbles about the XP lunch is all.

[Quemaqua]

I never had any issues either.  Obviously I came in late, but... yeah.

Again, I don't care about ANYTHING other than the fact that MS is making DX10 require Vista.  That's fucking crap, everyone knows it, and nobody is doing anything about it.  So go pay your money and don't be surprised when you continue to get raped in the future.  Even if that was the only issue I have with Vista (which it isn't by a long shot) it would be enough to justify in my mind every negative thought I've had about the OS.

[scottws]

Yes as a gamer, it makes no sense to upgrade to Vista yet. But yea it runs significantly faster, except when it is running games.

Don't they recommend a 3.0Ghz CPU and 2 GB of RAM though?  I mean that's ridiculous.

I think one of the thing that bothers me the most about Vista is the graphical horsepower they require.  Vista needs a pretty stiff system to run by today's standards, especially in the graphics card department.  I mean now when you're running your desktop, you're using like 400W of power.  That is absolutely absurd.

[Pugnate]

I've studied various benchmarks and at anything less than 512MB RAM Vista is behind XP.

At 1GB they are fairly equal with Vista in a slight lead.

At 2GB Vista is far far ahead.