> Dan Lingman wrote: >> Well, it's managed a win for me in one respect.
>> Lord of the Rings - Battle for Middle Earth. The damn copy protect >> just would not work properly under vista 64 bit for me.
> Either because you installed it to programx86 folder, didn't run it as > admin or you never looked for an updated 64bit driver for the > particular CP it used.
Lets try - None of the above.
I'd had it installed on vista under c:\EA\lotr
Tried multiple varients of run as admin, (selected for all the executables I could find), run in compatibility mode etc.
The forums there pretty much indicated that the CP just wouldn't work under vista 64. I tried downloading the 64 bit versions from the CP vendor site, but still no go. It did work under vista 32, but not 64.
Dan Lingman wrote: > Lets try - None of the above.
> I'd had it installed on vista under c:\EA\lotr
> Tried multiple varients of run as admin, (selected for all the executables > I could find), run in compatibility mode etc.
> The forums there pretty much indicated that the CP just wouldn't work under > vista 64. I tried downloading the 64 bit versions from the CP vendor site, > but still no go. It did work under vista 32, but not 64.
>> Tried multiple varients of run as admin, (selected for all the >> executables I could find), run in compatibility mode etc.
>> The forums there pretty much indicated that the CP just wouldn't work >> under vista 64. I tried downloading the 64 bit versions from the CP >> vendor site, but still no go. It did work under vista 32, but not 64.
>> Dan.
> OK, what type of CP was it?
just on this note - a whole bunch of people are playing the newly released Russian version of STALKER : Call of Pripyat on Windows 7 with ease because the Starforce copy protection used doesn't function on Windows 7. (they are the ones claiming, on the forum, that they have a Russian friend who posted them a copy)
It doesn't have much on old games and the benchmarking results are variable, as usual. DirectX 10 is definitely a point in favor for Windows 7, but I'm not sure of its significance today.
Interestingly, DirectX10 benchmarks show mostly faster results than the same game with DirectX9, but they don't say if it was the same benchmark.
Anyway, I don't see a compelling reason to upgrade right now. I'll probably switch when games or apps start dropping XP support or there's an otherwise significant reason.
"Elmer Fudd" wrote... >> Lets try - None of the above.
>> I'd had it installed on vista under c:\EA\lotr
>> Tried multiple varients of run as admin, (selected for all the >> executables I could find), run in compatibility mode etc.
>> The forums there pretty much indicated that the CP just wouldn't work >> under vista 64. I tried downloading the 64 bit versions from the CP >> vendor site, but still no go. It did work under vista 32, but not 64.
>> Dan.
> OK, what type of CP was it?
The real question is who gives a fuck? OSs are supposed to be easy and invisible. Having to go through the amount of crap just described is as good a reason as any to have avoided Vista. I'll take less time mucking around over a few frames per second anyday.
rob wrote: > The real question is who gives a fuck? OSs are supposed to be easy > and invisible. Having to go through the amount of crap just > described is as good a reason as any to have avoided Vista. I'll > take less time mucking around over a few frames per second anyday.
Problems happen for various reasons. Any time a game comes out, someone would complain that it doesn't work on his PC, regardless of operating system.
Vista x64 (and Windows 7 x64) is an immense improvement over WinXP x86. One of the best things about Vista x64 is the WoW (Windows on Windows) abstraction layer, that runs any 32 bit application without any issues and without requiring a single additional step from user.
For what it's worth, LOTRO ran fine on my Vista x64 system. Didn't have to do anything special. -- Noman
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:44:57 +1300, "rob" <rob...@xtranope.co.nz> wrote:
>The real question is who gives a fuck? OSs are supposed to be easy and >invisible. Having to go through the amount of crap just described is as >good a reason as any to have avoided Vista. I'll take less time mucking >around over a few frames per second anyday.
If you want to use a 8 year old buggy OS that is 2 DirectX versions behind the current instead of a sleek reliable modern OS, that is up to you, but I sure as hell can't see why anyone would. -- Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text. Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:47:18 +0000, Andrew <spamt...@127.0.0.1> wrote: >On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:44:57 +1300, "rob" <rob...@xtranope.co.nz> >wrote:
>>The real question is who gives a fuck? OSs are supposed to be easy and >>invisible. Having to go through the amount of crap just described is as >>good a reason as any to have avoided Vista. I'll take less time mucking >>around over a few frames per second anyday.
>If you want to use a 8 year old buggy OS that is 2 DirectX versions >behind the current instead of a sleek reliable modern OS, that is up >to you, but I sure as hell can't see why anyone would.
Actually, a major advantage for XP is its memory footprint is still significantly less than Vista or Win7. Many games state a minimum RAM requirement of 512MB on XP vs twice that for Vista.
The aforementioned compatibility is another reason to stay with XP. However, running older programs on newer a OS has always been a hobgoblin users have to face. There will always be some programs that won't run well, or at all but Microsoft has been very good at providing backward compatibility. Ultimately, I expect the whole problem will be solved with virtualization; already DOSBox offers us a awesome solution for most DOS-era games; hopefully in the near future we'll get a virtualization solution with proper 3D-acceleration for more modern applications.
Also, the "two DirectX versions behind" isn't really as big a problem as it sounds. The DirectX API makes it easier for developers to unleash the full potential of modern video adapters, but it is in no way essential. Back when there were many competing brands of video-cards, each with their own separate internal APIs, DirectX was a necessary standard but these days -with only two real manufacturers (ATI and Nvidia) to worry about- most programmers can get by with DirectX9 plus any specific extensions they write themselves. That's not to say modern versions of DirectX are worthless; far from it. But it is a fallacious argument to claim that sticking with XP means they are going to have significantly substandard graphics (I reminded of Crysis, where practically all the "Dx10 effects" were later unlocked for Dx9 users by hacking the config files)
Furthermore, while MS has made some strides with Vista (and apparently Win7, although its really too early tell with the latter), a properly patched XP is a stable platform. Security issues are a concern, but common sense can deal with most of these (use a firewall, don't download crapware, don't run as admin).
Ultimately, I expect I'll upgrade to Win7 myself -skipping Vista entirely- but I don't see a compelling or urgent need to jump to the new OS right away.
>> The real question is who gives a fuck? OSs are supposed to be easy >> and invisible. Having to go through the amount of crap just >> described is as good a reason as any to have avoided Vista. I'll >> take less time mucking around over a few frames per second anyday.
> Problems happen for various reasons. Any time a game comes out, someone > would complain that it doesn't work on his PC, regardless of operating > system.
> Vista x64 (and Windows 7 x64) is an immense improvement over WinXP x86. > One of the best things about Vista x64 is the WoW (Windows on Windows) > abstraction layer, that runs any 32 bit application without any issues > and without requiring a single additional step from user.
> For what it's worth, LOTRO ran fine on my Vista x64 system. Didn't have > to do anything special. > -- > Noman
I agree completely - it's why I jumped to vista 64 (and the win 7 64) as soon as it had come out.
Not tried lotro, this was the older, single/multi player (not mmo) strategy game I had been originally talking about.
Just installed the free xp mode virtual machine - it's a custom version of virtual PC, and a free windows XP machine to run in it.
Spalls Hurgenson wrote: > Actually, a major advantage for XP is its memory footprint is still > significantly less than Vista or Win7. Many games state a minimum RAM > requirement of 512MB on XP vs twice that for Vista.
Yes, but I have 4GB of ram on Win7 64bit and most games are hard coded to use a max of 2GB so it is a non-issue. It will be be an issue for XP users when there are many games that can use way more than 2GB of ram but they won't be able to access it because the OS only has about 3.5GB available to it once you subtract memory for hardware devices. On Win7 Home Premium 64bit I can install up to 16GB of ram and have it all accessible.
Thus spake Elmer Fudd <e...@invalid.invalid>, Sat, 31 Oct 2009 03:27:45 -0700, Anno Domini:
>Jonah Falcon wrote:
>> Cult of Mac >> "I need to go wash my eyes out with bleach."
>I despise Mac zealots and is reason enough for me to never buy a Mac. >Apples advertising is always BS too which rubs me the wrong way.
The best thing about MacOsx is that it's built on a Linux core (Debian?), though heavily butchered. :) But yes, Mac zealots, though few in numbers, are a very legionary vocal minority. Hey, maybe there's something to it...? <G>
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 12:06:14 +1100, Nostromo <nos...@forme.org> wrote: >Thus spake Elmer Fudd <e...@invalid.invalid>, Sat, 31 Oct 2009 03:27:45 -0700, >Anno Domini:
>>Jonah Falcon wrote:
>>> Cult of Mac >>> "I need to go wash my eyes out with bleach."
>>I despise Mac zealots and is reason enough for me to never buy a Mac. >>Apples advertising is always BS too which rubs me the wrong way.
>The best thing about MacOsx is that it's built on a Linux core (Debian?), >though heavily butchered. :) But yes, Mac zealots, though few in numbers, >are a very legionary vocal minority. Hey, maybe there's something to it...? ><G>
It's more accurate to say that MacOS X is BSD-based, not Linux. More precisely, it uses the Mach kernel, which was intended as a replacement for the BSD kernel (although some current implementations of BSD now also use the Mach kernel), with various other parts of BSD Unix subsystems glommed onto Apple's own software.
It can't really be called a BSD OS, except as a distant derivative but it is definitely closer to that implementation than Linux.
Which is all pedantic and irrelevant... but that's what Usenet is all about so I won't apologize for the digression ;-)
>>>> Cult of Mac >>>> "I need to go wash my eyes out with bleach."
>>>I despise Mac zealots and is reason enough for me to never buy a Mac. >>>Apples advertising is always BS too which rubs me the wrong way.
>>The best thing about MacOsx is that it's built on a Linux core (Debian?), >>though heavily butchered. :) But yes, Mac zealots, though few in numbers, >>are a very legionary vocal minority. Hey, maybe there's something to it...? >><G>
>It's more accurate to say that MacOS X is BSD-based, not Linux. More >precisely, it uses the Mach kernel, which was intended as a >replacement for the BSD kernel (although some current implementations >of BSD now also use the Mach kernel), with various other parts of BSD >Unix subsystems glommed onto Apple's own software.
>It can't really be called a BSD OS, except as a distant derivative but >it is definitely closer to that implementation than Linux.
>Which is all pedantic and irrelevant... but that's what Usenet is all >about so I won't apologize for the digression ;-)
That's right! I used to know that, but had forgotten it (like most things Apple). I stand/sit re-educated - tx Spalls! ;)
> > Actually, a major advantage for XP is its memory footprint is still > > significantly less than Vista or Win7. Many games state a minimum > > RAM requirement of 512MB on XP vs twice that for Vista.
> Yes, but I have 4GB of ram on Win7 64bit and most games are hard > coded to use a max of 2GB so it is a non-issue.
Actually a lot of 32-bit games are coded to never go beyond 1.3-1.4 GB of usage, let alone 2GB. However since the operating system can cache the game resources in the OS managed memory space (outside of the application/game controlled area), playing 32bit games like Oblivion on a 4GB machine with Vista x64 is *much* better than trying it even on a 3GB XP machine. A 4GB Vista x64 machine pretty much eliminates any pause (loading screens) in Oblivion wilderness areas. While the game gives up on an asset, the OS still keeps it in another RAM area, and makes it available to the game when it's needed. That's also because Vista's caching (SuperFetch) is a huge improvement over XP's prefetch scheme.
By the way, Windows 7 SuperFetch is pretty much same as Vista's. -- Noman
> The best thing about MacOsx is that it's built on a Linux core (Debian?), > though heavily butchered. :) But yes, Mac zealots, though few in numbers, > are a very legionary vocal minority. Hey, maybe there's something to it...?
MacOSX doesn't have any linux code in it (it would need to be open source if it did). It's based on BSD.
I use linux a lot but don't consider it suitable as a mainstream OS due to its constantly changing (often apparent change for changes sake) nature - it's very mercurial which is why some IT support people I know hate it with a passion.
Thus spake Scatter <u...@eeepc-r.domain_not_set.invalid>, Tue, 03 Nov 2009 09:39:50 GMT, Anno Domini:
>On 2009-11-01, Nostromo <nos...@forme.org> wrote: >> The best thing about MacOsx is that it's built on a Linux core (Debian?), >> though heavily butchered. :) But yes, Mac zealots, though few in numbers, >> are a very legionary vocal minority. Hey, maybe there's something to it...?
>MacOSX doesn't have any linux code in it (it would need to be open >source if it did). It's based on BSD.
BSD is open source last I checked. So, it's open source, it's Unix, I wasn't that far off! ;-p
>I use linux a lot but don't consider it suitable as a mainstream OS >due to its constantly changing (often apparent change for changes >sake) nature - it's very mercurial which is why some IT support people >I know hate it with a passion.
Apart from security patches (something you get a lot less of than Windoze!), you need only install very few core changes in the OS over a 2-3 year period, compared to 100s/1000s of from 'tweaks' to service packs for Win. Can't comment on MacOSX updates though. Have you tried Ubuntu as yet perhaps?!
Andrew wrote: > On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 07:05:46 -0700, Jellybean <je...@example.invalid> > wrote:
>> A lot of the reviewers and the general public's perception of Vista is >> so way off base that they just look like fools with their dumb comments >> like "Win7 is the OS Vista should have been". There really is not all >> that much different between current updated version of Vista and Win7. >> The less annoying UAC level that is in Win7 can easily be added to Vista >> with a 3rd party hack called TweakUAC. I have Win7 and it is decent but >> for reviewers to make it look like Vista was shit and Win7 is the best >> thing since sliced bread is just moronic.
> Most peoples view of Vista seems based on their experiences of when it > shipped and them trying to run it on old hardware. Personally I have > been happy with Vista all along, I have just gone with 7 as I wanted > to go 64bit and it was cheap. People go on about how fantastic XP is, > I remember the real problems a lot of people had when it was released, > and even today it is still pretty bad, and I have to do tech support > on it daily at work.
I am pretty impressed by 7 so far - admittedly, I bought a new hard drive and did a clean install of the 64 bit - but it just gets on with stuff that would normally need a net search and some messing (i.e. driver updates etc.).
The one problem I had with my SB Audigy 4 ended up solving itself after I BSODd whilst installing the latest Creative Driver. After reboot it downloaded something else without complaining and now it works perfectly (so far)!
As far as I could tell it didn't even need to reboot after a Gcard Driver update.
The only thing I want to do now is have that fancy floating window thing when you alt-tab that was in Vista - is that a setting somewhere or did it get removed because it's pointless?
> Andrew wrote: >> On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 07:05:46 -0700, Jellybean <je...@example.invalid> >> wrote:
>>> A lot of the reviewers and the general public's perception of Vista is >>> so way off base that they just look like fools with their dumb comments >>> like "Win7 is the OS Vista should have been". There really is not all >>> that much different between current updated version of Vista and Win7. >>> The less annoying UAC level that is in Win7 can easily be added to Vista >>> with a 3rd party hack called TweakUAC. I have Win7 and it is decent but >>> for reviewers to make it look like Vista was shit and Win7 is the best >>> thing since sliced bread is just moronic.
>> Most peoples view of Vista seems based on their experiences of when it >> shipped and them trying to run it on old hardware. Personally I have >> been happy with Vista all along, I have just gone with 7 as I wanted >> to go 64bit and it was cheap. People go on about how fantastic XP is, >> I remember the real problems a lot of people had when it was released, >> and even today it is still pretty bad, and I have to do tech support >> on it daily at work.
> I am pretty impressed by 7 so far - admittedly, I bought a new hard drive > and did a clean install of the 64 bit - but it just gets on with stuff > that would normally need a net search and some messing (i.e. driver > updates etc.).
> The one problem I had with my SB Audigy 4 ended up solving itself after I > BSODd whilst installing the latest Creative Driver. After reboot it > downloaded something else without complaining and now it works perfectly > (so far)!
> As far as I could tell it didn't even need to reboot after a Gcard Driver > update.
> The only thing I want to do now is have that fancy floating window thing > when you alt-tab that was in Vista - is that a setting somewhere or did it > get removed because it's pointless?
>> The only thing I want to do now is have that fancy floating window thing >> when you alt-tab that was in Vista - is that a setting somewhere or did it >> get removed because it's pointless?
Its not there anymore. Having owned both OS's I can say I believe it was dropped because it was completely pointless and was never used after the day of installation. The new way of looking at open windows in Win7 is much better IMHO.
>>> The only thing I want to do now is have that fancy floating window >>> thing when you alt-tab that was in Vista - is that a setting >>> somewhere or did it get removed because it's pointless?
> Its not there anymore. Having owned both OS's I can say I believe it > was dropped because it was completely pointless and was never used after > the day of installation. The new way of looking at open windows in Win7 > is much better IMHO.
...and then he tries an experiment and finds he is talking from a lower orifice. Press the Windows key and then tab....
>>> The only thing I want to do now is have that fancy floating window >>> thing when you alt-tab that was in Vista - is that a setting >>> somewhere or did it get removed because it's pointless?
> Its not there anymore. Having owned both OS's I can say I believe it > was dropped because it was completely pointless and was never used after > the day of installation. The new way of looking at open windows in Win7 > is much better IMHO.
They dropped alt-tab? :o
I use it. A lot.
Or did they just drop some fancy effect and retain the function?
>>>> The only thing I want to do now is have that fancy floating window >>>> thing when you alt-tab that was in Vista - is that a setting >>>> somewhere or did it get removed because it's pointless?
>> Its not there anymore. Having owned both OS's I can say I believe it >> was dropped because it was completely pointless and was never used >> after the day of installation. The new way of looking at open windows >> in Win7 is much better IMHO.
> They dropped alt-tab? :o
> I use it. A lot.
> Or did they just drop some fancy effect and retain the function?
> - Sheldon, still an XP luddite
No - they improved alt-tab. Its my preference still... :)
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:22:31 +0000, Shawk <sh...@gmx.com.3guesses> wrote:
>...and then he tries an experiment and finds he is talking from a lower >orifice. Press the Windows key and then tab....
Good find, thanks :-) -- Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards, please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text. Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
|
