Quake3World

Well? What are your thoughts?

have a test machine here at work with vista

terrible :icon14:
lots of unneeded visual improvements. and no it doesnt boot in the 2-3 seconds like they said ( ).
its XP with a macosx skin, really. and bigger icons. and more wizards.
and more ram usage.

i'm not but i'm interested in hearing the thoughts of vista users as well !

i've also tested it at work. pretty, but even with 2GB, quite RAM intensive. as far as visuals, most variants of linux can easily look better than that.

i'll wait.

I've still got RC1 on my home system, but I'll be getting the full release soon.

I've really liked it so far. Haven't had any real problems with it. It does seem to be a bit of a GPU hog, without having anything excessively visually taxing.
I only notice it when I have tons of windows open, which isn't often.

Oh, and the fact that so many programs aren't supported is a pain, but that's why I dual-boot.

thoroughly unimpressive...prolly won't even use it when i upgrade my rig...i'll wait until i'm forced into it.

I made the mistake of putting the 64bit version on my roommates new PC. It worked perfectly but according to him "nothing worked with it". In reality the only thing that didn't have drivers was my networked printer.

nothing has made me consider linux more seriously than all the stories i've heard about vista

works fine

yeah seems OK for me as well. I installed the business version on my mac. going to try and prem next and see what that's like.

the mac scores a 4.1 overall on that test thing, 4.8 for the CPU.

The 2.66GHz macpro I just ordered should be here Thursday... I wonder what that thing will score.

seremtan wrote:nothing has made me consider linux more seriously than all the stories i've heard about vista

I'd prefer some first hand experience before listening to ranting linux nerds.

I haven't used it but I'm loathe to upgrade just for some bloatware eyecandy.

What are the real benefits over XP? From what I understand they still have some DRM stuff going on but I don't follow that geek stuff enough to care.

I have a 2 year old machine with 2 GB of RAM....will I end up with a choppy machine that won't let me rip porn DVDs or play downloaded porn DVDs?

GONNAFISTYA wrote:...but I don't follow that geek stuff enough to care.

lol... as if..

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:i've also tested it at work. pretty, but even with 2GB, quite RAM intensive. as far as visuals, most variants of linux can easily look better than that.

i'll wait.

Same here btw.

Been running it on my media center since RC2, I like the new Vista Media Center much better then XP's. Ill be getting it.

Media Center and Aero work flawlessly so far on the integrated 945G chipset. I havent played any games on that pc though, and I dont really intend to. The video was the lowest score of the system at 3.

3 rofl

shaft wrote:I havent played any games on that pc though, and I dont really intend to.

You boring hick. Get off my internet.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:

shaft wrote:I havent played any games on that pc though, and I dont really intend to.

You boring hick. Get off my internet.

"media center pc" its sits in the a/v stand and is attached to the tv. I have other pc's and a 360 for gaming.

Doombrain wrote:3 rofl

shaft wrote:
"media center pc" its sits in the a/v stand and is attached to the tv. I have other pc's and a 360 for gaming.

Relax. No need to get defensive.

I was just taking a piss in your mouth. I see you swallowed it.

Carmack opinion:

http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/ ... .15034.htm

Carmack: It’s a tough thing for Microsoft, where, essentially, Windows XP was a just fine operating system. Before that, there were horrible problems with Windows. But once they got there, it did everything an operating system is supposed to do. Nothing is going to help a new game by going to a new operating system. There were some clear wins going from Windows 95 to Windows XP for games, but there really aren’t any for Vista. They’re artificially doing that by tying DX10 so close it, which is really nothing about the OS. It’s a hardware-interface spec. It’s an artificial thing that they’re doing there. They’re really grasping at straws for reasons to upgrade the operating system. I suspect I could run XP for a great many more years without having a problem with it.

we've got it running on a test machine here and i'd agree with the general concensus - it's alright, nothing special and it uses a lot of resources.

the stuff torm mentioned sounds interesting - does vista run on reasonable hardware now? the machine we had to build to test it is fucking preposterous.

GONNAFISTYA wrote: I was just taking a piss in your mouth. I see you swallowed it.