Forum Posts Following Followers
1656 117 102

2nd Gig://prise 39://Vista = Millenium 2?

Entry 117: The crucible of geeky pigs

Windows 98 updated and XP sevice pack 2 were admittedly solid operating systems, and the almighty Microsoft offered measly versions in between - namely the dreaded Millenium iteration. The actual Vista version may very well somber to the same fate if MS respect the deadline of its major strategic plan through 2009-2010 ( though we can surely anticipate delays ). It's routine, but here's the plot:

1) A considerable number of older PC games still remain incompatible/barely playable under Vista, after several months of penetration.

2) Following that, MS announced in August a '' new Vista '' already in the works for a hypothetical 2009 release ( 2010-2011 ? ), supporting another offspring: DirectX 10.1 with a forced 4x anti aliasing.

3) Here's the hitch: the 10.1 ticket won't be retro compatible on previous hardware - including 10.0/ 8800 video cards. The bare minimal requirement will be a Vista service pack 1 ( though it's still unclear if there is going to be one for sure ), which will allow to only use such an existing hardware with the new Vista yet without the 10.1 functionalities proper, i.e. staying with dx9/10.0 solutions. Ahhh, we all know how they know how to coerce addicted consumers to upgrade at a ludicrous basis, don't we?

It seems the master plan doesn't let enough room for Vista to grow I think, at least according to these little inputs we have. The ball's in the camp of the gaming studios: if the developers (blindly?) follow the (obligatory?) path set by thedominating mogul, then Vista could almost fell the way Millenium/W2000 did. We PC nuts still joyfully accept to be prisoners of this technological conspiracy swirl. In our doped paradises, we remain trusty guinea pigs, the geeky testers always gaming on temporary solutions. Again, we're all microsofted...

Furthermore, high end users almost become entangled right now within an inextricable trap when considering the sad fact that many recent highlighted games seem to run a bit more smoothly under dx9/XP than Vista/dx10. Alright, the biggies à la Crysis/UTIII/Call of Duty4 should eventually get a faster support from their respective creators. Yet waiting for patches to fix the eternal compatibility problems on the PC shall always be a hefty price to pay in order to get access at higher resolutions that meet the eye. A price I willingly pay, but most of my entourage won't - some being console fanboys who shall deploy tenfold their sarcasms. Admittedly, we're happy elitist geeky niches driving unto well fortified ghettos. A gaming apartheid. For the PC, it's a prison awaiting to expand again in the advent of a large scale 64 bit gaming promised years ago, now delayed.

In the meantime, and though I fully embrace it, what's the fuzz all about gaming under Vista, in fact, if to only experience barely noticeable visual gimmicks coming with a drop in the frame rates compared to similar settings on dx9/XP??? For one, the Gamespot's Crysis benchmark fully demonstrates some advantages to stay on XP ( scroll down the page ).

We're the cobayes willingly embracing a monopolistic gaming conveyor, as if we PC nuts were the flightless cormorans stuck in the Galapagos. The crucible of the swirling conundrum continues to engulf the addicted wanting to grasp nearer photo realistic resolutions, being the most powerful drug to ever capture videophiles. It's like a long time hostage falling in love with an endlessly moving captor.