Vista RTM and Defcon

Technical Support for all Defcon related issues

Moderator: Defcon moderators

User avatar
TheHappyFriar
level2
level2
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 7:59 pm
Location: upper left

Postby TheHappyFriar » Wed Dec 06, 2006 5:22 pm

didn't know it was legal (don't keep up 100% on windows releases). That's a good thing. :)

i guess i was speaking to the "wrong" crowd. We all have DX9 cards, or will buy them for gaming. We know where to find them cheap. But majority of computers/people out there don't have one & don't know what it is. So they'll end up buying a new PC for vista (like most bought a new pc for xp). all new PC's (with the exception of expensive, older intel's) are 64-bit compatible.

if you didn't know anything about pc's would you start upgrading parts just to install a new version of Windows? Or would you want it to run "out of the box"? Odds are, either way, people will need to upgrade a vid card to run it. Everybody in my family (parents, grandparents, brothers, sisters, wife) except me will need a video hardware upgrade to run it, and i'm betting most of them would just buy a whole new $500 PC to run it instead. which would be 64-bit. Many of them bought pc's/laptops within the past two years, so they're not old either, Vista capable hardware just isn't installed on all newer pc's/laptops.

i see it as the same thing as when 32-bit CPU's (386) came about. Win95 required them even though 16-bit 286's were still plenty full. And when Quake 3 required a GPU. People bought GPU's to run it, and now they're standard. I believe if MS doesn't start requiring 64-bit we'll never really see a PC integration to it. :(

i agree it would be expensive to upgrade to 64-bit, but DX10 is Vista only & DX10 games will be vista only. So you'll probley end up spending a couple hundred on a DX10 vid card along with a couple hundred on a Vista liscence. Throw in the new "windows certified games" MS plans on doing, then it will be even more convulated.

so yeah, it's cheaper to just buy an ATI 95xx+ card (aparently, all cards lower then that don't get driver updates as of feb'06), but most people won't do that anyway, they'll just buy a new PC.
User avatar
NeoThermic
Introversion Staff
Introversion Staff
Posts: 6254
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 10:55 am
Location: ::1
Contact:

Postby NeoThermic » Wed Dec 06, 2006 6:23 pm

You make good points, but there's a small note you might be missing. Vista will run fine on a non-dx9 card, it just won't use the flashy Aero interface. Therefore it's recomended that you have a DX9 card for the best experence, but it isn't required or demanded from you. (I mean, I got Vista running (as a test) on my P-M 1.2GHz with 256MB RAM, and a 32MB SMA S3 Twister. If that card can run Vista, any decent intergrated card or better can. (indeed, some people have pointed out that the intel extreme cards, if new-ish, can run the new interface as well))

Requiring a 64bit CPU, however, is just insane, and would of driven people away from windows (as, after using the RC's, I really want a copy of Vista, and I would be horribly dissapointed should I be required to pay some £500 to upgrade my computer to 64bit to run it).

NeoThermic
User avatar
TheHappyFriar
level2
level2
Posts: 236
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 7:59 pm
Location: upper left

Postby TheHappyFriar » Wed Dec 06, 2006 7:29 pm

NeoThermic wrote:You make good points, but there's a small note you might be missing. Vista will run fine on a non-dx9 card, it just won't use the flashy Aero interface. Therefore it's recomended that you have a DX9 card for the best experence


that's something I keep forgetting because, quite simply, Microsoft doesn't say that on their Vista "requirements" page. Yes, the "actual requirements" don't mention DX9, but how much digging do they expect people to do? On a simular note, they require a DVD drive which will cost some people $$ for an upgrade. I just don't get why they say "you need an outdated CPU but you need a state of the art optical disc drive & gpu, but we'll happily support 1994 SCSI drives." (EDIT: just noticed, again, on the main requirements page they say DVD drive but on the actual requirements they say CD)

Requiring a 64bit CPU, however, is just insane, and would of driven people away from windows (as, after using the RC's, I really want a copy of Vista, and I would be horribly dissapointed should I be required to pay some £500 to upgrade my computer to 64bit to run it).


i don't think that CAN happen. People NEED windows just like they NEED Office. But, i'm sure you agree that no software/hardware company will make 64-bit Windows drivers at the same "quality" as 32-bit ones until they don't need to make 32-bit ones. Companies only stop supporting a windows version when MS stops supporting it (like Win2k & ME within the past year). It irks me that I can't use my 64-bit AMD to it's full potential with my Windows apps because nobody wants to support it (I guess i'm on the opposite side of the fence as you!).
User avatar
NeoThermic
Introversion Staff
Introversion Staff
Posts: 6254
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 10:55 am
Location: ::1
Contact:

Postby NeoThermic » Wed Dec 06, 2006 8:19 pm

TheHappyFriar wrote:I just don't get why they say "you need an outdated CPU but you need a state of the art optical disc drive & gpu, but we'll happily support 1994 SCSI drives." (EDIT: just noticed, again, on the main requirements page they say DVD drive but on the actual requirements they say CD)


A DVD drive is not "state of the art". DVD's have been about since 1997, and have basically been standard in PC's since about late 2000, early 2001. If your PC is older than 6 years (by the time Vista is GA), then it couldn't run Vista well anyway, even if it did have a DVD drive.


TheHappyFriar wrote:i don't think that CAN happen. People NEED windows just like they NEED Office. But, i'm sure you agree that no software/hardware company will make 64-bit Windows drivers at the same "quality" as 32-bit ones until they don't need to make 32-bit ones. Companies only stop supporting a windows version when MS stops supporting it (like Win2k & ME within the past year). It irks me that I can't use my 64-bit AMD to it's full potential with my Windows apps because nobody wants to support it (I guess i'm on the opposite side of the fence as you!).


I would wager this comes down to a simple point that 64bit CPU's (just before conroe's release) didn't have a high enough penetration to develop for. I mean, MS and ATi and nVidia must of done a fesability study into this kind of thing and collected hard numbers. 32bit CPU's are abound, and if MS wants people to update to Vista, it needs to be compatable with them, as they outnumber 64bit CPU's majorly.

When, and only when, 64bit CPU's become the norm for a few years (~2010?), that would be the time to make 64bit only things and halt 32bit development. For now, though, 32bit is still more popular than 64bit and this is what happens. It does hurt when you sit on the bleeding edge you know ;)

NeoThermic
User avatar
ShadowFox37
level1
level1
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 3:12 pm
Location: Somewhere in time...
Contact:

Postby ShadowFox37 » Wed Dec 06, 2006 11:29 pm

The ATi cards dying and Vista are not related, so I'm not sure why you posted it.


Oh, sorry, I think I misinterpreted what was being said.

I just don't get why they say "you need an outdated CPU but you need a state of the art optical disc drive & gpu, but we'll happily support 1994 SCSI drives." (EDIT: just noticed, again, on the main requirements page they say DVD drive but on the actual requirements they say CD)


Yeah, that's been irking me for awhile too...
User avatar
NeoThermic
Introversion Staff
Introversion Staff
Posts: 6254
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 10:55 am
Location: ::1
Contact:

Postby NeoThermic » Thu Dec 07, 2006 5:07 am

TheHappyFriar wrote:so yeah, it's cheaper to just buy an ATI 95xx+ card (aparently, all cards lower then that don't get driver updates as of feb'06), but most people won't do that anyway, they'll just buy a new PC.


Something just reminded me of this line from your post. The simple reason why anything before a 9500 doesn't get a driver anymore is because only 9500's or higher are DX9 compatable. So one could feasably say that Vista has forced the hand here.

NeoThermic
Jarrah
level0
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 9:05 am

Postby Jarrah » Tue Jan 09, 2007 8:38 pm

Has this bug been fixed with the latest Defcon patch, or is it still ATI's side of things?
User avatar
el_cascador
level2
level2
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:53 pm
Location: Gent, Belgium
Contact:

Postby el_cascador » Tue Jan 09, 2007 9:12 pm

There was no bug in Defcon
It is just that ATI cards didn't support OpenGL
bit i think it's fixed now
or they're at least working on it
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Tue Jan 09, 2007 9:59 pm

el_cascador wrote:There was no bug in Defcon
It is just that ATI Vista drivers didn't support OpenGL
bit i think it's fixed now
or they're at least working on it

Fixed. The problem is not that the cards themselves don't support OpenGL, but that there aren't any ATI drivers that support OpenGL under Windows Vista. The same card, on an XP box, should be fine.

xander
User avatar
el_cascador
level2
level2
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:53 pm
Location: Gent, Belgium
Contact:

Postby el_cascador » Wed Jan 10, 2007 1:47 pm

sorry that was what i meant to say
i have an ati card myself and didn'thave any trouble
on XP that is
User avatar
NeoThermic
Introversion Staff
Introversion Staff
Posts: 6254
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 10:55 am
Location: ::1
Contact:

Postby NeoThermic » Wed Jan 10, 2007 4:08 pm

As a side note, ATi do release new drivers about once a month. You'll be looking for about the 15th of this month for the next Vista (and XP) drivers. Hopefully these will contain OpenGL support as Vista goes GA this month.

NeoThermic

Return to “Windows Troubleshooting”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest