Direct X 10 for XP?

[kingdingeling]

Hey Waco, I challenge your AMD rig for a battle! Lets see who's the best then! You got a 2900XT, I got one, fair battle imo! You use Vista, I'll use XP Pro SP2, and we shall see what differences there are, alright? You up for that, or are you gonna chicken out?

[Kash]

I use XP Pro SP2 primarily because it does EVERYTHING I need it to, full compatibility with all games, drivers, apps... everything and I mean everything I use

 

That's great, but it still doesn't say why Vista is a bad OS.

 

This is the problem with this thread. Everybody keeps bashing Vista because they say how XP works fine for them. Yet few people offer legit reasons as to why they consider Vista to be a bad OS.

 

How about you guys ditch the opinions and work with the facts? Then we might actually be able to have a proper debate. Verran set a good example.

[romeo55]

Hey Waco, I challenge your AMD rig for a battle! Lets see who's the best then! You got a 2900XT, I got one, fair battle imo! You use Vista, I'll use XP Pro SP2, and we shall see what differences there are, alright? You up for that, or are you gonna chicken out?

 

I think your core 2 will give you too much of an advantage over his 4X00+, you may have to run at stock speeds in order to fall back to his OC'D X2 speeds

 

UF>>> go out side and play.... you get the idea.

 

I was going to say you need to get out some.

 

As far as Vista goes, I also have Vista Business, and I haven't had any significant problems with it as a general "family" computer OS. It takes some getting used to, everything has been rearranged and what not. I only had one real major annoyance, and that was trying to network it. Other than that, nothing really.

Edited September 17, 2007 by The Unforgivin

[kingdingeling]

I think your core 2 will give you too much of an advantage over his 4X00+, you may have to run at stock speeds in order to fall back to his OC'D X2 speeds

so true...

[Waco]

It's NOT slow at all, do you even use VMWare?!

Yes I do, I have the newest version.

 

I think your core 2 will give you too much of an advantage over his 4X00+, you may have to run at stock speeds in order to fall back to his OC'D X2 speeds

I was going to say you need to get out some.

I have an Opty 165 @ 2.8 GHz.

[hardnrg]

Yes I do, I have the newest version.

Well, then you should know that the performance hit of running Ubuntu64 under 32-bit XP is very small... the resulting folding performance of Linux SMP under Ubuntu64 inside VMWare is *better* than Windows SMP... and more convenient to almost everyone than native Ubuntu64...

 

The resulting performance hit in Debian and Slackware is also very small.

 

and FYI, an Opteron @ 2.8GHz is about on par with an E6600 at stock speed... so with the usual 50% or higher OCs of C2Ds, dual core A64 technology just isn't capable of competing...

[Waco]

and FYI, an Opteron @ 2.8GHz is about on par with an E6600 at stock speed... so with the usual 50% or higher OCs of C2Ds, dual core A64 technology just isn't capable of competing...

I know that, I've benched it against my other computer and it's roughly close to the C2D at 2.4 GHz.

[bigred]

The driver issues (incompatible drivers or no drivers) of Windows Vista are not Microsoft's fault, are the lack of working drivers for Linux the creator of that distro's fault?

I think not...

 

If you buy a piece of hardware that has no drivers for an Apple computer is that Apples fault?

nope

 

Why then would Microsoft be at fault for 3rd party hardware not having drivers or having drivers which conflict with other things?

 

 

 

hate to burst your bubble ont his one... but it has happened. the most famous / infamous one of recent history has been apple's denial of creative labs to produce drivers for thier cards for anything past OS 9. and for those who don't believe things... go google apple and creative's fights... it's an enlightening experience. and creative labs isn't the only comapny who apple or even microsoft has done this too. there are several scanners and printers from companies like epson which only worked in 2000 and not XP (though you could some times fool the drivers to think they were in 2000)... and not for technical reasons.

[M3NF]

Looks like its possible......

 

http://www.technospot.net/blogs/download-d...m-alky-project/

 

Interesting, be cool if someone here could confirm, as i use vista.

[oblivescence]

hmm... interesting. I guess somebody finally told the people working on the alky project that they were attempting the impossible. Originally, I believe, their goal was to write a program that you plug in a windows binary and out pops a linux binary. *sigh* Well, making dx10 games work on xp is somewhat similar. I guess. I wonder what the performance reduction is?

[hardnrg]

I know that, I've benched it against my other computer and it's roughly close to the C2D at 2.4 GHz.

so why would you say the C2D only offers marginally more performance than an X2 ?

[Waco]

so why would you say the C2D only offers marginally more performance than an X2 ?

Because without overclocking, it is close. That's already been explained earlier in the thread.

 

I said marginally, because if you have an X2 at ~3 GHz and a C2D at 3.4 GHz, you aren't likely to be able to see a huge difference in performance. 10-20% is a decent amount but it's not something you'd be able to pick out at a glance.