DocZ
Member
+13|6908|Belgium
Well I'm planning on getting me a new PC soon *cough* quad core *cough*   

So I was thinking...  should I already get me Vista?  Anyone got any experience?  Coz if BF won't run in Vista yet, I'll stick to XP for the time being.......

So any useful info on the subject would be appreciated....
mpvltr
Member
+4|6905
bf2 works in vista so i gues 2142 to
_j5689_
Dreads & Bergers
+364|6937|Riva, MD
I thought Vista had some issues with PunkBuster.
majorassult
I <3 ak101
+307|6883|under there hayousaidunderwear
vista works for some people and doesn't work for others.

btw quad core is a waste of money.  Just get a core 2 extreme.
[RU]Grmbl
Member
+9|6713|Russia
I run Vista Ultimate RTM - 2142 working fine.
Just give BF2142 admin. access to prevent PB kicks.
DocZ
Member
+13|6908|Belgium

majorassult wrote:

Just get a core 2 extreme.
the intel (r) core 2 extreme QX6700 is a quad core..................


but anyway am I to take it Vista is a sound investment at this point?
DerGraueWolf
aka Nekrodamus
+52|6952|Germany, near Koblenz
As there is still an evident performance lag and quite a lot of incompatibilities, a gamer should wait for some major patches and updated drivers.
[RU]Grmbl
Member
+9|6713|Russia

DerGraueWolf wrote:

As there is still an evident performance lag and quite a lot of incompatibilities, a gamer should wait for some major patches and updated drivers.
Personally I do not beleive that Vista will be gamer-ready anytime soon. There's just to much going on behind the curtains - this fucking OS just lives live on its own.

I start playing BF and get HUGE lags because of HDD activity. Look into processes/services - there's a bunch of bloatware eating CPU/HDD. Have to kill half of the services to get it to play BF2142 normally. Have to admit though, that after services are dead - tsarting/loading BF2142 seems to be faster...
I don't want no fucking search indexing / HDD defragmentation / whatever when playing games.

Was it hard for MS to code it to suspend background activites when there is an app in DirectX full-screen mode? No. They are just fucktards.
DocZ
Member
+13|6908|Belgium
okay then..... I think I know enough.... I'll hold off on Vista for the time being......  I already knew MS were smacktards when it came to stability and coding in relation to DirectX apps.  Now I see Vista is no different then XP in its first years.....
majorassult
I <3 ak101
+307|6883|under there hayousaidunderwear

DocZ wrote:

majorassult wrote:

Just get a core 2 extreme.
the intel (r) core 2 extreme QX6700 is a quad core..................


but anyway am I to take it Vista is a sound investment at this point?
no a core 2 extreme X6800 is a dual-core and it is faster then a quad-core.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a … 6819115001
fatmarik
Member
+23|6802|Anywhere i am needed
you can disable indexing and all that stuff in vista through properties and the games runs amazing on vista ultimate, (how do i know) cuz i have vista rc2 running.
DocZ
Member
+13|6908|Belgium
great!!  Now you guys got me all confused......  Now I don't know what cpu to buy, plus I don't know for sure I should buy vista......
[RU]Grmbl
Member
+9|6713|Russia
Here you go:

1. Intel Core Solo - single-core CPU, becoming obsolete.
2. Intel Core Duo - Intel's first try on double-core CPUs, generally enough to work and play.
3. Intel Core 2 Duo - overhauled Core Duo. Lower-power/heat version (laptops, etc). Still DOUBLE-CORE. Different sources report performance boosts from 10% to several times (depends on tasks you do I guess).
4. Intel Core 2 Duo Extreme - high-power/heat version of Core 2 Duo (desktops, etc.). Not really much faster than plain Core 2 Duo.

My advice would be - if you can afford Core 2 Duo, get it, as it is better than Core Duo. On the other hand, if you get Core Duo, you're not going to suffer...

Check this: http://www.3dnews.ru/cpu/core_2_duo/index3.htm (page is in Russian, just look at the graphics').

As for Vista - well, I'm using Vista since RTM release, about a month or so... Generally, usability is better but it needs lots of tweaks and patches yet. And it doesn't really designed for games, too much bloat...

I've seen good advice on Vista - DO NOT BUY VISTA ALONE! Wait and buy it as OEM version with new computer, when it becomes available. This way you will be sure that computer will run it OK and get it much cheaper.

XP will do just fine for next 1-2 years. If you still decide to go Vista way - you can download RTM version and run it legally for 30 days (or longer, but it's not legal ). You will need at least 1 GB of RAM (2 GB better) to run it.

P.S. I run Vista on my home laptop: Core Duo 2 GHZ, 2 GB RAM, SATA HDD, ATI X1400. Works fine, I even play BF on it.

Last edited by [RU]Grmbl (2006-12-29 06:08:56)

DocZ
Member
+13|6908|Belgium
Well, here's another question (probably one of the stupidest questions since the dawn of ages):

Will Battlefield run when you have DirectX 10 installed?

(I searched the net for a suitable answer, but every site is so terribly vague and evasive on the question of backward compatibility)
[RU]Grmbl
Member
+9|6713|Russia

DocZ wrote:

Well, here's another question (probably one of the stupidest questions since the dawn of ages):

Will Battlefield run when you have DirectX 10 installed?

(I searched the net for a suitable answer, but every site is so terribly vague and evasive on the question of backward compatibility)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectX#DirectX_10

In fact, Vista includes Direct3D 10. It runs BF2142 OK...

I believe that Direct eXes were backward compatible because they included features from previous versions. Probably this should be the case. But there are rumors that DX9 will run slower on boxes with DX10 installed. I don't think that it matters much given ENORMOUS GPU requirements for Vista. :-)

Microsoft will not nuke all of the existing pre-DirectX10 games with this upgrade - they are not so stupid.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard