SPRING sucks on Win VISTA

AF · Post by AF » 06 Mar 2007, 04:37

Vista great, unless your on a geforce 8800 , in which case NVIDIA BURN IN HELL F*CKING BUGGY BETA DRIVERS

LordMatt · Post by **LordMatt** » 06 Mar 2007, 06:42

smoth wrote:bu bu but I TECHED TO XP!

NNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOES!

um only nubs tech to XP...

AF · Post by AF » 06 Mar 2007, 13:35

hmm, nvidia where asses again and released v101.41 drivers and kept the 100.65 drivers on the download page. Tog et to them you need to goto quality assurance page, click on the march the second announcement and continue on to the new drivers. What's more nvidia where very bad at doing the email, they sent it out on 26th february and told ppl to goto that page for the latest news item for more info but that item hadnt been added, and wasnt untill march 2nd. pfft

el_matarife · Post by **el_matarife** » 06 Mar 2007, 14:56

Personally I'm just going to get another hard drive and dual boot into XP for all the stuff that doesn't work yet. Vista is GREAT for most productivity applications and stuff, but drivers and some software are just KILLING me.

zwzsg · Post by **zwzsg** » 06 Mar 2007, 19:30

mongus wrote:Its the other way around you fool.
(of course its vista which is sucking in presence of Spring).

Quoted for Truth!

Also, I don't see the point in downgrading my current windows to vista.

Guessmyname · Post by **Guessmyname** » 06 Mar 2007, 19:40

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/p ... _cost.html

XP to Vista = downgrade computer!

iamacup · Post by **iamacup** » 06 Mar 2007, 20:17

vista and spring work fine

infact everything and vista work fine.

if not better.

your all failiurs, your also all the people who go 'SUPCOM IZ GHEYZZZ OMG NEEDZ PEN-TE-UM 4 OR ABOV SHT!!!""!├é┬ú!1111'

LathanStanley · Post by **LathanStanley** » 06 Mar 2007, 20:21

I'm runnin vista, pretty damn well too...

Ultimate Edition x64

system:
Simple version:
4.4GHz
4 gigs ram
radeon x1600 Pro 512 mb
raid 0 harddrive array 2 drives.
operating drive, 1 harddrive.

egghead version:
(OC = overclocked, OV = overvolted)
MoBo: 800MHz FSB OC'd, OV'd -> 1042 at 2.5v NB
Proc: 3.4GHz OC'd, OV'd -> 4.428GHz (hyperthreaded single core) @ 1.7125 volts
RAM: 2 gigs DDRII RAM (800MHz) OC'd, OV'd (521MHz dual channel @ 1042MHz, 2.1 volts)
VPU: Radeon x1600 (587 MHz) OC'd to 631MHz, memory OC'd to 702 MHz
and the RAID previously mentioned, and lots of uber H2O cooling..

Anyways, Vista... has some issues with OLD games, and enormous issues with x16 stuff (it won't load ANYTHING written in 16 bit programming, nothing. most of which is so effin old though, I dunno wtf you need it for... some people moan about the auto installers using 16 bit data, the really old ones, say pre-1998, aren't gonna work, but thats not a killer, you can always manual install if you REALLY need that old of program..) and for spring, the shadows are a lil ... off.. sometimes, but all in all, it runs well.. and the responsiveness of vista is fantastic! Don't get me wrong, its not perfect, there are a few tweaks to be done, namely with account management and some of the display fancy hoop da whap... but yeah, I like it... alot.

I do need to check my drivers again, ATI releases em every month and the ones I'm using are built on the Vista platform, but are a bit skittish on throwing a few artifacts here and there, I'm sure overclocking dosen't help either...

but yeah... nubs on XP, get the $%#$@ out of your ass, and go mainstream early!...

I went mainstream early back in early 2000 to XP, everyone was skeered, then I showed them how WELL it ran, if used properlly, and everyone upgraded... then it became standard, and yeah, everything from there you gentlemen are aware of... the same happened with windows 2000, windows 98, windows 95, all versions of windows 3.x, hell, AND DOS for that matter... even Amiga,... and the "old skool" disk run operating systems that every floppy had its own boot system, and operating system...

but meh, people will accept it as standard eventually, I can only encourage you to learn the program, BEFORE the spyware companies do... and that, is the best defense to keeping it running smooth.

LathanStanley · Post by **LathanStanley** » 06 Mar 2007, 20:26

iamacup wrote:your all failiurs, your also all the people who go 'SUPCOM IZ GHEYZZZ OMG NEEDZ PEN-TE-UM 4 OR ABOV SHT!!!""!├é┬ú!1111'

lmfao

Guessmyname · Post by **Guessmyname** » 06 Mar 2007, 21:07

Vista's computer requirements would be much lower if they hadn't stuffed all that 'premium content' protection crap into it

aGorm · Post by **aGorm** » 06 Mar 2007, 21:39

Hang on your system spec is confusing...

4 gigs ram
is not:
2 gigs DDRII RAM (800MHz) OC'd, OV'd (521MHz dual channel @ 1042MHz, 2.1 volts)

Atleast last tome I checked it didn't. Thats either 2 or 4 not both!

EXPLANE!!!!!!

aGorm

(BTW, Nice overclock on the CPU...)

iamacup · Post by **iamacup** » 06 Mar 2007, 21:46

hes doubled the ram frequency effectively meaning 4gb i guess, but its not.
LIES!

aGorm · Post by **aGorm** » 06 Mar 2007, 21:57

That does not mean it can store twice the amount of info... Its still 2 gig.

aGorm

AF · Post by AF » 06 Mar 2007, 22:53

Vista's computer requirements would be much lower if they hadn't stuffed all that 'premium content' protection crap into it

What you mean the program that only ever runs when you stick a HD DVD/Blue ray disk into your drive and try to play it in windows media player? Who has a drive able to play one of those nevermind ahs the idiotic idea of using media player to play it.

Vista content protection only turns on if you try to play protected content, something you need a $300 optical drive to be capable of doing.

Ishach · Post by **Ishach** » 06 Mar 2007, 23:32

Guessmyname wrote:Vista's computer requirements would be much lower if they hadn't stuffed all that 'premium content' protection crap into it

Forum user 'Guessmyname' weighs into this issue with some in-depth operating system knowledge

Argh · Post by **Argh** » 07 Mar 2007, 05:28

After actually reading http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/p ... _cost.html, I am seriously thinking that I might just go to Linux when I next upgrade my hardware, if I see that the match of hardware/software is right for me. I don't really *like* Linux very much, and I'd have a very hard time replacing all of my primary software (that's the big problem for me- no serious 3D modelers that aren't extremely expensive, I'd have to re-buy Photoshop, etc.) but ... meh... how can the company that finally redeemed itself in my eyes, by releasing Windows 2000 Professional and XP Professional (and finally got me to buy PCs instead of Macintoshes) screw up the implementation of an OS this much! And this is just the tip of the iceberg, I have a feeling

At least with Linux, I'd be able to avoid the "decomposition-through-malware-vulnerabilty" cited by Mr. Gutmann. I'm sorry, but Vista looks like Millenium Edition all over again.

Neddie · Post by **Neddie** » 07 Mar 2007, 05:43

Eccch... yeah, might do the same here.

iamacup · Post by **iamacup** » 07 Mar 2007, 08:27

if you buy the oem (and can live without microsoft support (wich is actualy fucking amazing before anyone goes off on one, have you ever tried it? no, well you should it rocks. they rang me up.... i was like wowza)) you spend less on vista ultimate (about 110 quid) than you do buying XP Pro (even now)

win win tbfh.

Ishach · Post by **Ishach** » 07 Mar 2007, 08:52

Theres nothing really I want from XP atm that I dont get from vista

PauloMorfeo · Post by **PauloMorfeo** » 07 Mar 2007, 21:40

ZellSF wrote:
Relative wrote:Also, opengl support is really poor on vista. I'm surprised you managed run spring
What. OpenGL support is up to the graphic drivers, not Vista.

(seriously, why do people seem to constantly listen to these false rumors without at least investigating a little? I've had people tell me Vista sucks because of DRM, yet they were unable to tell me what DRM was or even what it was short for).

AF wrote:Vista has native opengl 1.2 support.

XP has no native OpenGL support at all.

ZellSF is right, its the gfx card providers fault not microsoft. Go blame ATI or nvidia.

I don't know the truth of how Vista actually works now but i know the rumors.

Acording to the initial rumors, in Vista, OpenGL would be implemented through Direct3D and limited to 1,4 (and considering that it's quality would be left in Microsoft hands). Now, the thing was, the grafical enviroment would be run in Direct3D meaning that, to use OpenGL provided by manufacturers, the grafical sistem would have to reinicialize, seriously degrading usage of the OS (meaning all opened grafical aplications would probably shut down and stuff).

Something like that. Microsoft got presured to change that, maybe that is not how Vista is working right now. Or maybe it still is.
No matter how Vista works now, great damage is already done because of the rumors and fears of OpenGL coming to an ├é┬½end├é┬╗ in the next OSs of Microsoft.

At the moment, Vista is probably no better at gaming than Linux.
Microsoft is trying to jump from it's legacy of Windows OSs from the past that have extreme insecurities in it's basis. This means the new kernels will probably be more secure, with some features that Unix/Linux have from .. always, but will be completely incompatible with previous kernels, like Windows XP. This means that software made for previous Windowses will run through a compatibility layer, you may have heard that, since it is a known feature of Vista, which i also like to call Emulating or TheSameAsUsingWineInLinux (wel, probably more polished, though). For example, i remember 2 games from Windows 95 that do not run in Windows XP (and run under Wine, haha).

Spring RTS Engine

SPRING sucks on Win VISTA