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

"linux57" wrote in message
...

I'm interested in some justification for getting upgrades that require
this level of performance. For most applications / home PCs, nobody has
shown that there is any justification for DirectX 10 or Vista.

Huh? Put a naked girl in the desert and a couple guys will show up. Build
a road, well many more will show up.

In a while... less than year methinks all new games, programs, etc will use
Vista, DX10 etc. The road has been built, just waiting for the traffic.

That answer was BS. There are lots of under $100 video cards that are
just fine for Vista, including Aero.

DirectX 10 is another matter entirely; and the only people who will need
or want DX10 in the near future will be hard-core gamers.


Cessna 310 wrote:
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?

J. Clarke wrote:
Cessna 310 wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

On the other hand, there's nothing in it that seems to require
hardware acceleration of the new features of DirectX 10.

That's a key point, but still does not get back to the basic
justification for migrating to Vista.

If you don't see anything in it that you need then there is no
justification. If you don't want it don't get it.

Asking people who have not the slightest clue what you do with your
computer to give you a justification for upgrading is silly. For all we
know your main use could be to run WordStar on a CP/M emulator.


Not at all. The question remains as to why people are upgrading. What
is their justification.

Personal use is only an indicator as to whether the upgrade will make
any difference.

BTW, I stopped using CP/M emulation several weeks ago. But I still have
a computer that will boot either CP/M and MS-DOS (NCR DecisionMate5).
Depends on which 5 1/4 boot floppy is in the drive.

Cessna 310 wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
Cessna 310 wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:

On the other hand, there's nothing in it that seems to require
hardware acceleration of the new features of DirectX 10.

That's a key point, but still does not get back to the basic
justification for migrating to Vista.

If you don't see anything in it that you need then there is no
justification. If you don't want it don't get it.

Asking people who have not the slightest clue what you do with your
computer to give you a justification for upgrading is silly. For
all we know your main use could be to run WordStar on a CP/M
emulator.


Not at all. The question remains as to why people are upgrading.
What is their justification.

Personal use is only an indicator as to whether the upgrade will make
any difference.

Generally people are upgrading because they see some need to upgrade.
But what one person sees as a "need" another sees as an irrelevancy.

If it won't make any difference then there's no "justification" for the
upgrade.

BTW, I stopped using CP/M emulation several weeks ago. But I still
have a computer that will boot either CP/M and MS-DOS (NCR
DecisionMate5). Depends on which 5 1/4 boot floppy is in the drive.

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

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:04:54 GMT, "Slap" wrote:


"linux57" wrote in message
...

I'm interested in some justification for getting upgrades that require
this level of performance. For most applications / home PCs, nobody has
shown that there is any justification for DirectX 10 or Vista.
My personal opinion (and this is my field), there is no real
justification outside of security for the home PC.

Huh? Put a naked girl in the desert and a couple guys will show up. Build
a road, well many more will show up.

What's she look like and which desert...(coordinates will do)

In a while... less than year methinks all new games, programs, etc will use
Vista, DX10 etc. The road has been built, just waiting for the traffic.

Although I do agree with you...mostly...:-)) "I think" (which means
I really don't know for sure) that most applications will continue to
run quite nicely on XP Pro and DX9. I also think *most* applications
will be happy with DX 9 for some time to come. I emphasized the most
as it certainly will not be all.

There are many DX9 cards currently running on Vista (they reportedly
sold 90 million copies the first month) and few except the diehard
gamers will have the 8800 GTX and GTS cards which are the only ones at
present that are DX10 compliant. So the rest including the new
computers that are preloaded will still have DX-9 hardware.

Justification is a relative term or at least I put it about a step
above rationalization. ( usually use the rationalization to create the
justification) Where one person is going to say Vista is a "must
have" another may say "it'd be nice" to another who would say "I
should be able to get along nicely on XP Pro and DX-9".

"For me" the only real justification I can see "near term" is the
added security with Vista that most users could have had with a
properly configured installation of XP Pro behind a firewall. Longer
term I am going to want DX10 on at least one "state-of-the-art"
machine as that's what it takes to run FSX. (I hope they fix the code
in that to work with multi core and share the load with the GPU) The
other four machines will *probably* stay as XP Pro until what ever
comes out after Vista, or will end up as LINUX machines.
They also say Vista is more stable than XP but I've never had a
stability problem with XP on 4 machines (recently went to 5)

I do a lot of photo editing and one machine is pretty much a
multimedia center. it'll be a while before either of those go Vista
due to the DRM/premium content and HDCP compliant component
availability. When I can play HD DVDs (which ever mode) and use my
computer as a high definition equivalent of TvIO, or my 922 receiver
then those machines *Might* get changed over.

The only real drawback I see for the end user is DRM while I view WGA
with mixed emotions as it has both its good and bad sides. OTOH if you
are running XP you *WILL* be running WGA if auto updates are enabled.
It's on two of the five machines and has not created any problems so
far other than the one machine got confused when trying to install it
and it took three tires before it'd work correctly.

With the installed base of XP out there, it's likely that "for the
home user" there is really very little valid justification, or gain to
be had by upgrading to vista. IOW, it'd be a very rare home user that
would gain anything (or see any difference other than eye candy) by
upgrading. So except for a very small percent, the home users could
stay with XP and never even notice there was a Vista. OTOH if it had
the security most home users could still get by with 98SE. Surfing
the Internet and e-mail take very little power. Word processors have
become quite bloated. As I work with web pages I think they should ban
Front page and Word's ability to convert a doc to HTML. Those two add
new meaning to the words "bloat code".

One other question comes to mind: How many of the home users have the
hardware that would work with Vista without requiring some updating.
Some older printers and scanners may create some problems even with
the generic drivers available. I'm not so sure I can get a Vista
driver for my Nikon LS5000ED scanner which is one of the higher end
scanners. Particularly as there is less and less call for scanners
with cameras going digital.

The home user base *will* eventually migrate to Vista as they replace
their old machines with new ones that come preloaded with OS and Apps
which would certainly be the safest route. How fast this will
happen,or how many will migrate before the next OS is out is any one's
guess. There are a LOT of Win 98 and 98SE machines still out there
that don't have the horsepower to run XP and Office let alone Vista or
the latest version of office, and multimedia apps.

OTOH The rest of us might have a *LOT* to gain by the average home
user having an OS that enforces the security, that they can't seem to
be bothered with at present. I would be nice to see those millions of
zombies go away.

Still, with the statement that the *NEXT* OS is only a couple years
away (I think 09 was listed) Vista may not be much more than an
interim OS between XP and what ever comes next. It is an evolutionary
step that is pretty much like XP with the security (control of what
the user can do) wrapped around the Kernel, plus a few extra features.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

DRM as Micrsoft sees it? I say this because HDCP can be had on a XP system.
I have a XBox360 HD-DVD drive, CyberLink PowerDVD v6.5, and HDCP complient
video card (7900GT) and monitor (Westy 37" 1080p) that works great on my
MCE2005 system.

....and I'll 'upgrade' to Vista when SP-1 is released... maybe ;-)

SoCalCommie

"Behind every great fortune is a crime." - Honore de Balzac

"Roger" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:04:54 GMT, "Slap" wrote:


"linux57" wrote in message
...

I'm interested in some justification for getting upgrades that require
this level of performance. For most applications / home PCs, nobody
has
shown that there is any justification for DirectX 10 or Vista.
My personal opinion (and this is my field), there is no real
justification outside of security for the home PC.

Huh? Put a naked girl in the desert and a couple guys will show up.
Build
a road, well many more will show up.

What's she look like and which desert...(coordinates will do)

In a while... less than year methinks all new games, programs, etc will
use
Vista, DX10 etc. The road has been built, just waiting for the traffic.

Although I do agree with you...mostly...:-)) "I think" (which means
I really don't know for sure) that most applications will continue to
run quite nicely on XP Pro and DX9. I also think *most* applications
will be happy with DX 9 for some time to come. I emphasized the most
as it certainly will not be all.

There are many DX9 cards currently running on Vista (they reportedly
sold 90 million copies the first month) and few except the diehard
gamers will have the 8800 GTX and GTS cards which are the only ones at
present that are DX10 compliant. So the rest including the new
computers that are preloaded will still have DX-9 hardware.

Justification is a relative term or at least I put it about a step
above rationalization. ( usually use the rationalization to create the
justification) Where one person is going to say Vista is a "must
have" another may say "it'd be nice" to another who would say "I
should be able to get along nicely on XP Pro and DX-9".

"For me" the only real justification I can see "near term" is the
added security with Vista that most users could have had with a
properly configured installation of XP Pro behind a firewall. Longer
term I am going to want DX10 on at least one "state-of-the-art"
machine as that's what it takes to run FSX. (I hope they fix the code
in that to work with multi core and share the load with the GPU) The
other four machines will *probably* stay as XP Pro until what ever
comes out after Vista, or will end up as LINUX machines.
They also say Vista is more stable than XP but I've never had a
stability problem with XP on 4 machines (recently went to 5)

I do a lot of photo editing and one machine is pretty much a
multimedia center. it'll be a while before either of those go Vista
due to the DRM/premium content and HDCP compliant component
availability. When I can play HD DVDs (which ever mode) and use my
computer as a high definition equivalent of TvIO, or my 922 receiver
then those machines *Might* get changed over.

The only real drawback I see for the end user is DRM while I view WGA
with mixed emotions as it has both its good and bad sides. OTOH if you
are running XP you *WILL* be running WGA if auto updates are enabled.
It's on two of the five machines and has not created any problems so
far other than the one machine got confused when trying to install it
and it took three tires before it'd work correctly.

With the installed base of XP out there, it's likely that "for the
home user" there is really very little valid justification, or gain to
be had by upgrading to vista. IOW, it'd be a very rare home user that
would gain anything (or see any difference other than eye candy) by
upgrading. So except for a very small percent, the home users could
stay with XP and never even notice there was a Vista. OTOH if it had
the security most home users could still get by with 98SE. Surfing
the Internet and e-mail take very little power. Word processors have
become quite bloated. As I work with web pages I think they should ban
Front page and Word's ability to convert a doc to HTML. Those two add
new meaning to the words "bloat code".

One other question comes to mind: How many of the home users have the
hardware that would work with Vista without requiring some updating.
Some older printers and scanners may create some problems even with
the generic drivers available. I'm not so sure I can get a Vista
driver for my Nikon LS5000ED scanner which is one of the higher end
scanners. Particularly as there is less and less call for scanners
with cameras going digital.

The home user base *will* eventually migrate to Vista as they replace
their old machines with new ones that come preloaded with OS and Apps
which would certainly be the safest route. How fast this will
happen,or how many will migrate before the next OS is out is any one's
guess. There are a LOT of Win 98 and 98SE machines still out there
that don't have the horsepower to run XP and Office let alone Vista or
the latest version of office, and multimedia apps.

OTOH The rest of us might have a *LOT* to gain by the average home
user having an OS that enforces the security, that they can't seem to
be bothered with at present. I would be nice to see those millions of
zombies go away.

Still, with the statement that the *NEXT* OS is only a couple years
away (I think 09 was listed) Vista may not be much more than an
interim OS between XP and what ever comes next. It is an evolutionary
step that is pretty much like XP with the security (control of what
the user can do) wrapped around the Kernel, plus a few extra features.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

SoCalCommie wrote:
DRM as Micrsoft sees it? I say this because HDCP can be had on a XP
system. I have a XBox360 HD-DVD drive, CyberLink PowerDVD v6.5, and
HDCP complient video card (7900GT) and monitor (Westy 37" 1080p) that
works great on my MCE2005 system.

DRM as Cable Labs sees it, apparently.


...and I'll 'upgrade' to Vista when SP-1 is released... maybe ;-)

SoCalCommie

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

Roger wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:04:54 GMT, "Slap" wrote:


"linux57" wrote in message
...

I'm interested in some justification for getting upgrades that
require this level of performance. For most applications / home
PCs, nobody has shown that there is any justification for DirectX
10 or Vista.
My personal opinion (and this is my field), there is no real
justification outside of security for the home PC.

Huh? Put a naked girl in the desert and a couple guys will show up.
Build a road, well many more will show up.

What's she look like and which desert...(coordinates will do)

In a while... less than year methinks all new games, programs, etc
will use Vista, DX10 etc. The road has been built, just waiting for
the traffic.

Although I do agree with you...mostly...:-)) "I think" (which means
I really don't know for sure) that most applications will continue to
run quite nicely on XP Pro and DX9. I also think *most* applications
will be happy with DX 9 for some time to come. I emphasized the most
as it certainly will not be all.

There are many DX9 cards currently running on Vista (they reportedly
sold 90 million copies the first month) and few except the diehard
gamers will have the 8800 GTX and GTS cards which are the only ones at
present that are DX10 compliant. So the rest including the new
computers that are preloaded will still have DX-9 hardware.

Justification is a relative term or at least I put it about a step
above rationalization. ( usually use the rationalization to create the
justification) Where one person is going to say Vista is a "must
have" another may say "it'd be nice" to another who would say "I
should be able to get along nicely on XP Pro and DX-9".

"For me" the only real justification I can see "near term" is the
added security with Vista that most users could have had with a
properly configured installation of XP Pro behind a firewall. Longer
term I am going to want DX10 on at least one "state-of-the-art"
machine as that's what it takes to run FSX. (I hope they fix the code
in that to work with multi core and share the load with the GPU) The
other four machines will *probably* stay as XP Pro until what ever
comes out after Vista, or will end up as LINUX machines.
They also say Vista is more stable than XP but I've never had a
stability problem with XP on 4 machines (recently went to 5)

I do a lot of photo editing and one machine is pretty much a
multimedia center. it'll be a while before either of those go Vista
due to the DRM/premium content and HDCP compliant component
availability. When I can play HD DVDs (which ever mode) and use my
computer as a high definition equivalent of TvIO, or my 922 receiver
then those machines *Might* get changed over.

The only real drawback I see for the end user is DRM while I view WGA
with mixed emotions as it has both its good and bad sides. OTOH if you
are running XP you *WILL* be running WGA if auto updates are enabled.
It's on two of the five machines and has not created any problems so
far other than the one machine got confused when trying to install it
and it took three tires before it'd work correctly.

With the installed base of XP out there, it's likely that "for the
home user" there is really very little valid justification, or gain to
be had by upgrading to vista. IOW, it'd be a very rare home user that
would gain anything (or see any difference other than eye candy) by
upgrading. So except for a very small percent, the home users could
stay with XP and never even notice there was a Vista. OTOH if it had
the security most home users could still get by with 98SE. Surfing
the Internet and e-mail take very little power. Word processors have
become quite bloated. As I work with web pages I think they should ban
Front page and Word's ability to convert a doc to HTML. Those two add
new meaning to the words "bloat code".

One other question comes to mind: How many of the home users have the
hardware that would work with Vista without requiring some updating.
Some older printers and scanners may create some problems even with
the generic drivers available. I'm not so sure I can get a Vista
driver for my Nikon LS5000ED scanner which is one of the higher end
scanners. Particularly as there is less and less call for scanners
with cameras going digital.

The home user base *will* eventually migrate to Vista as they replace
their old machines with new ones that come preloaded with OS and Apps
which would certainly be the safest route. How fast this will
happen,or how many will migrate before the next OS is out is any one's
guess. There are a LOT of Win 98 and 98SE machines still out there
that don't have the horsepower to run XP and Office let alone Vista or
the latest version of office, and multimedia apps.

OTOH The rest of us might have a *LOT* to gain by the average home
user having an OS that enforces the security, that they can't seem to
be bothered with at present. I would be nice to see those millions of
zombies go away.

Still, with the statement that the *NEXT* OS is only a couple years
away (I think 09 was listed) Vista may not be much more than an
interim OS between XP and what ever comes next. It is an evolutionary
step that is pretty much like XP with the security (control of what
the user can do) wrapped around the Kernel, plus a few extra features.

Uh, security in Vista is not "wrapped around the kernel". Security has
been in the kernel since NT 3.51.

Anybody who is NT certified has known how to lock down just about
everything since some time in the mid '90s.

What's different in that regard with Vista is that out of the box it's
fairly well locked down where with earlier releases the administrator
had to configure the security policies himself. If you go into the
group policy editor you'll find that it is pretty much the same in NT4,
Win2K, XP, and Vista. Access control lists are pretty much the same as
well. So is the handling of security within the registry.

As for the "next OS being two years away", If that's what Microsoft says
_now_ and it's going to be more than adding some new bells and whistles
to NT then expect it sometime around 2011. Remember Windows 2000?
Which was supposed to be NT5 and to be shipped in 1998? Microsoft is
not good at hitting OS release deadlines.


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

Right, I forgot about them. So worried that their precious premium content
might get recorded to a DVD or HD for later viewing. Eff 'em, it's only a
matter of time before someone busts their protection scheme (racket) -
BluRay and HD-DVD has already been hacked, less than a year after release.

SoCalCommie

"Behind every great fortune is a crime." - Honore de Balzac

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
SoCalCommie wrote:
DRM as Micrsoft sees it? I say this because HDCP can be had on a XP
system. I have a XBox360 HD-DVD drive, CyberLink PowerDVD v6.5, and
HDCP complient video card (7900GT) and monitor (Westy 37" 1080p) that
works great on my MCE2005 system.

DRM as Cable Labs sees it, apparently.


...and I'll 'upgrade' to Vista when SP-1 is released... maybe ;-)

SoCalCommie

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

SoCalCommie wrote:
Right, I forgot about them. So worried that their precious premium
content might get recorded to a DVD or HD for later viewing. Eff 'em,
it's only a matter of time before someone busts their protection
scheme (racket) - BluRay and HD-DVD has already been hacked, less
than a year after release.

The thing about BluRay and HD-DVD is that they don't get to send a tech
into your house to hook you up. The cable company does and they can
shut off your service if they see anything they don't like.

SoCalCommie

"Behind every great fortune is a crime." - Honore de Balzac

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
SoCalCommie wrote:
DRM as Micrsoft sees it? I say this because HDCP can be had on a XP
system. I have a XBox360 HD-DVD drive, CyberLink PowerDVD v6.5, and
HDCP complient video card (7900GT) and monitor (Westy 37" 1080p)
that works great on my MCE2005 system.

DRM as Cable Labs sees it, apparently.


...and I'll 'upgrade' to Vista when SP-1 is released... maybe ;-)

SoCalCommie

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

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