[H]ard|OCP has a couple of editorials pointing out why they don't think Microsoft's new Windows Vista OS isn't a terribly compelling upgrade. From the first: It is going to be a good while before you will be required to have Vista and its DX10 to play the games you want to play. You can likely hold out a good while and the longer you hold off, likely the better off you will be. Let the early adopters work out those problem areas. There’s still the minor detail of just how much better DX10 is going to make those games. That hasn’t been made exceedingly clear, and, frankly, I’ll believe it when I see it. ...and the second: Now that Microsoft’s largely ineffective marketing campaign is coming to a close, we’re all faced with the question of whether or not we should upgrade. To be fair, however, most of us know that we will eventually upgrade due to Microsoft’s inclusion of DirectX 10, so it’s not really so much a question of “if” but rather “when.” Indeed, DX10 is practically the only feature most of us want, and we’ll have to pay for it, as Vista is the only way to get it. Microsoft deserves credit, in a Darth Vader type of way, for tying DX10 into Vista in order to force consumers to upgrade.
I think the second article really nailed it about the DX10 strategy. Sure, it's new, but as XP hasn't given me trouble, except when I was having issues with bad memory or a bad hard drive, I'm hard pressed to really bash XP. They came to the same conclusion I have: Vista is there to pimp DX10, which likely won't be required for several years. Even Crysis will not require DX10 to play...although it will likely look better.
That's true, but you're missing the point. Even with a DX10 card, if you want to play DX10 games with DX10 effects, you need Vista. Add to that how Microsoft's arguement for DX10 is "it's really awesome", wouldn't you be a little leery of dropping $500 plus another $200-400 on an OS for a single component you want? That's what, $700-900 to be able to play DX10 games? Come on.
Yeah that's true. It would be better to buy a game console (PS3, Wii or xbox360). That won't cost you as much as upgrading to Vista AND buying a DX10 capable graphics card. And most games are made for a console. Pc games are getting rare.
Hyped ones anyway. I like the precision of a PC with the keyboard and mouse, but it depends on the game. Halo is a good example of an FPS that had decent controls on a console. In general, I've been largely disappointed with the controls on FPS console games. I don't think PC gaming will go away simply because of the greater level of control you get from a mouse and keyboard. Additionally, the upgrade path is much more open with a PC than a console.
i wouldn't go as far as to say disappointed i would say extremely disappointed with console controls. That said, developers need to make more support for console to support a usb mouse and keyboard. On Vista, thats what i was saying, its really hard to justify all that hardware to run vista first off, then run DX10, and run a game on top of Vista's huge ass. So, a sweet computer now, like uber sweet, will really be needed to run a game with higher settings anyways. Its dumb.
The thing with Vista though is everyone's complaining about is the same thing that's been said about pretty much every new OS Microsoft has released. When XP first came out the main thing I heard was it's a bloated Win 2K with a new interface, and everyone needed a massive system to run it then. The way I see it is within the next couple years Vista will be the dominate platform just as XP became after the first generation of PC's launched and system prices fell. As far as requirements go it's pretty much a given MS is going to up the bar substantially with each new release. After all they want to keep system builders happy so that they continue pre-installing Windows and what better way to do that than to up the requirements every few years so that the PC manufacturers can make their money with a new upgrade cycle.
True. On the same token, looking at the jump in hardware requirements for Vista in comparison with the requirements for past Windows versions. There's a significant jump from Windows XP's requirements to Vista in comparison to the jump from Win98/ME/Win2k to XP. What I'd really like to see is a comparison between XP and Vista on several different configurations.
Yeah, i remeber that i really didn't want to get XP because it was a little bit of a heavy guy, but i mean like people with really sweet systems now, like really sweet aren't so sweet on Vista. But yes, marketing and all that crap, only i just think they went a little crazy, and it doesn't kinda seem like a step backwards. Vista is all about DX10, well a system still has to run all that Vista in the background and as you all know Vista is REAL BIG boy, so gaming performance will suffer. Yes you do have a point systems will start to get pretty crazy pretty soon with quadbillion cores and systems that clock in a 3ghz but would be like a P4 at 20million ghz. Yes i did go a little crazy with that, but Syngod you make a really good point. But yeah, i'm waiting for that to, i want to see a side by side comparison, or charts or something.
If you actually think about it Linux's lack of system requirements may actually be it's major downfall. After all if you can still run the OS fine on a 10 year old machine why would a system builder pre-install it as their isn't a real reson to upgrade your PC hence less revenue for the builder. Without the major system builders preloading systems with Linux it's never going to become a mainstream OS, as Joe Six Pack is going to stick with whatever comes with their system.
That's simply not the case. It's not like Linux will run slower on new hardware or somehow not make good use of it. It'll only make the hardware manufacturer's hardware look better if anything. No there are other, less savory, factors at play in that arena. Besides, the area in which Linux is making the most headway is in the server market, and I can't think of anyone who doesn't want to get the maximum possible performance out of their server hardware.
Servers you do see Dell & others putting Linux on and in some cases advertising but for consumer PC's when was the last time you saw HP or Dell advertise Linux preinstalled. For servers they can usually either get a support contract, or they know chances are the companies are going to require more storage & more power so it makes sense to offer Linux to those customers. However on desktops who's going to spend $1000-3000 on a new system if the latest version of an OS runs fine on their hardware. When they are told a new OS is the latest and greatest but they'll have to upgrade to take advantage of it, there is a greater call to action and therefore alot greater revenue for the system builder who is able to deliver a system that meets the new requirements. Look at stock prices after every major Windows release and you'll see system builders get a boost. I don't think you could probably say the same about linux as most users I've taled to preet much all seem to mention they're running it on older hardware.
No, most people who run Linux on servers buy bare metal and provide the OS themselves. HP, Dell and most others play ball here. Don't forget that Apache has had the webserver market share for a very long time... and most of that runs on either Linux or *BSD. Big sites like Yahoo or Google have more servers than just about anyone else, and run all their production stuff on the *nixes. Even MS had to eat humble pie and continue to run FreeBSD on Hotmail for a long time after they'd planned on migrating to the NT family.
