Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
tips@gizmodo.com
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | Email | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
Email | AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
Email | AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
Email | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
Email | Twitter
Sean Fallon
Email | Twitter
Jack Loftus
Email | Twitter
John Herrman
Email | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Email
Chris Mascari
Email
Danny Allen
Email | Twitter
Rosa Golijan
Email | Twitter
Chris Jacob
Email
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Email
Kyle VanHemert
Email
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff | Email
Comment Account Questions:
Comments@gizmodo.com
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/15/08
11/15/08
I'm a gamer, not professional but I take it seriously. I am on a Vista 64 machine now and Vista is WWAAAAYYYY better for running games. Vista reallocates all of your ram from your previous task, to your current one. So, the games get the full attention of your components and run way faster. I play Crysis, Warhammer, Battlefield 2, 2142, Bioshock and all at full resolution and I get 50 frames per second and sometimes higher which is great considering the human eye can only detect 30. When I'm playing multi-player I'm always the first to enter a zone and I can keep fighting when my friends are lagged out. I'm saying that my oppinion greatly differs and I'm coming from the background of someone who builds machines, uses Vista 64 and games every week.
My machine cost like $620 to build.
Intel Core 2 Duo E8300 2.83ghz
4GB Ram
Vista 64 Business
Nvidia 8600GT 1 GB dedicated card (cost me like $74)
Gigabyte PCI express motherboard with 6 PCI slots, 1 PCIE
et cetera et cetera.
I think people are so used to hearing and passing on the BS Vista rumors that they begin to imagine they have had issues themselves to fit-in or something, when in reality most have never touched the OS.
11/15/08
[www.tomshardware.com] (test machine)
[www.tomshardware.com] (9800GX2 results)
What resolution might that be, 640x480 perhaps? And what's that? You think your graphics card or processor makes you 'load into a zone' faster in multiplayer? Never occured to you that your internet connection and ping might have something to do with it?
One last thing. The human eye is not digital. It does not see "frames". Instead, the eye collects data (light detection, pattern detection etc.) which when combined is percieved as an image, and this is all fed to the brain continuously. Furthermore, it can discern the "smoothness" of video/games/etc at a rate of 150-200 frames per second.
Sorry, but your arguements are redundant. While I don't advocate senseless Vista bashing, I've found my Vista rig (Q6700 2.6Ghz, 8600GT 512MB, 3G RAM) to be slower transfering files to and from USB than my XP rig. It also has minor glitches here and there (i.e. double click .jpeg image and it takes almost a minute to load, almost lost my user profile etc.).
Runs games fine. However, since Vista isn't installed on the same rig as XP, I can't compare performance (XP rig has way lower specs). Bottom line though, it's been a rough experience with Longhorn, where XP's been smooth sailing. Millions of people, Microsoft included, will tell you the same.
11/17/08
It's also microsofts fault that I bought $299 speakers from the back of a van, because it had MSRP $1000 on the box.