Looking for a "pretty good" PCI-E video card ...

J. Clarke wrote:
Augustus wrote:
"Barry Watzman" wrote in message
...
Hey, Sky King: It just doesn't make to get a card that's not Vista
(Aero) compatible when one that is doesn't cost any more. Without
regard to whether or not one has current plans to actually use Vista
(plans change).
This is essentially my point.

I don't know what you people are on about. It's hard to find a
PCI-Express video board that is _not_ "Aero compatible". You'd have to
pretty much set out deliberately to find one. Seems to me that it's a
non-issue.



I believe they are confusing 'Aero' compatibility or capabilities with
either HDCP or DX10 compatibilities, as you say, nearly every card will
run desktop compositioning, including non current cards.

DX10 compliance, a whole different issue. The mainstream GeForce 8
series will be available in about two weeks, so there will be more
options for those brave and foolish Vista early adopters.

Sorry ATI group for the crosspost, but you have your share of
misinformed folks over there too!

"Mr.E Solved!" wrote in message
news
J. Clarke wrote:
Augustus wrote:
"Barry Watzman" wrote in message
...
Hey, Sky King: It just doesn't make to get a card that's not Vista
(Aero) compatible when one that is doesn't cost any more. Without
regard to whether or not one has current plans to actually use Vista
(plans change).
This is essentially my point.

I don't know what you people are on about. It's hard to find a
PCI-Express video board that is _not_ "Aero compatible". You'd have to
pretty much set out deliberately to find one. Seems to me that it's a
non-issue.



I believe they are confusing 'Aero' compatibility or capabilities with
either HDCP or DX10 compatibilities, as you say, nearly every card will
run desktop compositioning, including non current cards.

DX10 compliance, a whole different issue. The mainstream GeForce 8 series
will be available in about two weeks, so there will be more

No, I'm not confusing Aero compatability with DX10 compliance. Vista Aero on
a low memory 64bit turbo-cache or hypermemory style card will wok but is not
desirable. It has sluggish performance compared to even the 1300 series and
7300 cards. And there's plenty of bottom feeder cards out there with 64bit
memory and low dedicated RAM. Vista Aero doesn't require much. But you will
defintely feel a difference between a 64bit 7100LE Turbocache or a 64 bit
1550 Hypermemory versus a "real" low end 7300 or 1300 series given the same
hardware.

Augustus wrote:
"Barry Watzman" wrote in message
...
Hey, Sky King: It just doesn't make to get a card that's not Vista (Aero)
compatible when one that is doesn't cost any more. Without regard to
whether or not one has current plans to actually use Vista (plans change).

This is essentially my point.



In the context of the proposed use of the card, the 7300GT, 7600GS or
7600GT would be fine. All run in Vista. They use DirectX 9.0 with
backward compatibility with Vista.

So if there is some rational reason discovered to move to Vista, the
cards will run.

Augustus wrote:
"Mr.E Solved!" wrote in message
news
J. Clarke wrote:
Augustus wrote:
"Barry Watzman" wrote in message
...
Hey, Sky King: It just doesn't make to get a card that's not Vista
(Aero) compatible when one that is doesn't cost any more. Without
regard to whether or not one has current plans to actually use Vista
(plans change).
This is essentially my point.
I don't know what you people are on about. It's hard to find a
PCI-Express video board that is _not_ "Aero compatible". You'd have to
pretty much set out deliberately to find one. Seems to me that it's a
non-issue.


I believe they are confusing 'Aero' compatibility or capabilities with
either HDCP or DX10 compatibilities, as you say, nearly every card will
run desktop compositioning, including non current cards.

DX10 compliance, a whole different issue. The mainstream GeForce 8 series
will be available in about two weeks, so there will be more

No, I'm not confusing Aero compatability with DX10 compliance. Vista Aero on
a low memory 64bit turbo-cache or hypermemory style card will wok but is not
desirable. It has sluggish performance compared to even the 1300 series and
7300 cards. And there's plenty of bottom feeder cards out there with 64bit
memory and low dedicated RAM. Vista Aero doesn't require much. But you will
defintely feel a difference between a 64bit 7100LE Turbocache or a 64 bit
1550 Hypermemory versus a "real" low end 7300 or 1300 series given the same
hardware.



Who's talking about turbo-cached video cards? All three of the cards I
mentioned have their own dedicated on-board memory. No turbo caching.

But the issue is whether there is a real reason to migrate to Vista
within the expected life of an average computer (3 - 5 years).

Who's talking about turbo-cached video cards? All three of the cards I
mentioned have their own dedicated on-board memory. No turbo caching.

But the issue is whether there is a real reason to migrate to Vista within
the expected life of an average computer (3 - 5 years).

The previous post was in response to the post about it being hard to find a
PCI-Express card that isn't Areo compatible. Which is true. But compatible
and desirable are two different things. There's a noticeable difference with
Aero on a bottom feeder 64bit card. Which was my point.

Augustus wrote:

I'm not sure I agree with the need to upgrade to Vista. It doesn't fix
anything that's broken.


I wouldn't upgrade to Vista until SP1 and other issues have been addressed.
But it doesn't hurt to get your budget card Aero capable. He may have it for
3-5 years.



A trully Aero capable card is gonna cost no less than $400.

J. Clarke wrote:

Augustus wrote:

"Barry Watzman" wrote in message
. ..

Hey, Sky King: It just doesn't make to get a card that's not Vista
(Aero) compatible when one that is doesn't cost any more. Without
regard to whether or not one has current plans to actually use Vista
(plans change).

This is essentially my point.


I don't know what you people are on about. It's hard to find a
PCI-Express video board that is _not_ "Aero compatible". You'd have to
pretty much set out deliberately to find one. Seems to me that it's a
non-issue.


More important is Direct X 10 compliant. Good luck finding one under $450.

Augustus wrote:
Who's talking about turbo-cached video cards? All three of the
cards I mentioned have their own dedicated on-board memory. No
turbo caching.

But the issue is whether there is a real reason to migrate to Vista
within the expected life of an average computer (3 - 5 years).

The previous post was in response to the post about it being hard to
find a PCI-Express card that isn't Areo compatible. Which is true.
But compatible and desirable are two different things. There's a
noticeable difference with Aero on a bottom feeder 64bit card. Which
was my point.

I don't see a whole lot of difference between a Radeon 9600 and a 1650.
There may be some ultra-crap cards that slow it down but I'd want to
avoid them for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with Vista.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

No One wrote:
Augustus wrote:

I'm not sure I agree with the need to upgrade to Vista. It doesn't
fix anything that's broken.


I wouldn't upgrade to Vista until SP1 and other issues have been
addressed. But it doesn't hurt to get your budget card Aero capable.
He may have it for 3-5 years.


A trully Aero capable card is gonna cost no less than $400.

I'll stick to XP, thank you.

What advantage does Vista offer that's worth the cost of upgrade? And
why does it require a $400 video card to run it?

No One wrote:


More important is Direct X 10 compliant. Good luck finding one under $450.

Why is it important to have a card that's DirX10 compliant? Won't the
current crop of 9 cards work?