Matrix Games Forums

After seeing the MAC commercial several time yesterday I have to believe there is some evidence that Vista is failing in the marketplace. The commercial implies that people who have owned Vista are going back to XP (good news for XP owners YAY). I found it funny when even the PC person in the commercial said he'd gone back to XP also. lol I wouldn't believe MAC would put up some false commercial that Vista was failing if there weren't some evidence that is is. Course I said it would be several years before Vista MIGHT be viable to consumers. They've got to wait until the next generation of users buy PC's that have Vista only installed. But, from that commercial it would seem even people who are buying computers with Vista in them now are switching back to XP.

You obviously don't know anything whatsoever about marketing...

I imagine that Apple is taking the problems that many gamers are experiencing and having fun with it. I am not sure what business users think of Vista.

Dell is giving the option of Windows XP or VISTA to buyers of their new computers. That, to me at least, is a big sign of dissatisfaction with VISTA! I'm happy that at least I will now have a choice if I buy a new computer.

Oh ye of little memory... There was the same dissatisfaction with the now "vaunted" Windows XP when it first came out. It wasn't until SP 2 that Windows XP became "workable," as it had numerous security risks, memory leaks, and blue screens of death until that update. That is why I NEVER buy Windows products out the gate. It usually takes them several years to "fix" all of the problems.

That being said, Vista seems to be absolute trash for gamers. Sure, the new games coming out can use DirectX 10, which allows for better graphics, but older games or games done by smaller groups (like Matrix) nearly always need some sort of patch to make them Vista workable. It isn't usually a huge deal, but it forces Vista users to wait longer than XP users to play their games.

SoM

Not all games I'm sure. HCCE was tested on Vista and runs that way. Now the company I work (Medical Software) for ships only for XP at this time and is only testing Vista support. UAC is a real problem for many software companies. We are also fighting to come out with the XP & Vista 64 bit versions as well however. Entirely different drivers sets. We also run on Parallels and some of our gurus have forced it to tun on Wine. However I'd bet SoM is right about needing to wait for SP1 before the major bugs are out of Vista.

Well, If I was stepping up a huge business with a huge it force who would be vista competent I might consider the benifits BUT really, its like being given a great car that will work in a few years, ok, sell it to me in a few years then ....HELLO!

I just think Vista is too soon after XP has been out and after they stopped supporting Win95/98 series I would imagine customers are a bit leary of the keep paying me Bill Gates syndrome. I'd laugh my socks off it MAC all of a sudden came to the forefront of business and home based systems. But, I doubt that will happen, but, at least a MAC will run PC and MAC programs an it's now intergrated into their systems if I'm not mistaken. I like what DELL is doing that will be good for business for them and put Vista on the ole backburner for several more years to come I believe. Personally I think Bill could make more money if he'd make an OS that would run EVERYTHING from 1981 to present and future. It suks to have to use this OS for that program and that OS for this program and DOSBOX for those programs and then some just won't run anything because of graphics drivers etc. etc. It really burns me up when a game tells me it's not compatible with my PROCESSOR or GRAPHICS card. I can't play "Silent Storm" because my graphics card is too modern. That just totally sucks. I can't play "High Heat Baseball 2000" because it's not compatible with my PROCESSOR! "Scorched Earth" has issues with my processor AND graphics card. lol I can't play ANY of my QQP games even using DOSBOX because of my graphics card. What I/we need is a graphics card SCSI external box that we plug ALL our graphics cards into and then easily SWITCH to the one we need to play a particular game instead of having to take one out and put another one in play the game then take that one out and put the other one back in. We need a quick easy system where we can replace graphics cards and sound cards (though I don't have major issues with sound cards) all in one box outside the system.

I own Macs for music & video editing and I like them just fine.

What I find funny is that Apple has the exact same problems as MS.

My brother also uses them for business. He currently uses three. A Mac w/ Panther for one old program. An Intel Mac w/ Tiger that most of his applications run on. And a new notebook w/ Leopard that none of his applications run on currently (when travelling). Of course Apple's answer to the problem is that he purchase the latest versions of all his programs - some of which don't exist any longer.

As for games, there aren't any for the Mac worth worrying about. Which makes it even easier for Apple to throw stones at MS.

One aspect of my day job is essentially to tell companies what to do with technology. I can tell you I have not once yet told any company, large or small, to spend money on Windows Vista. Nor have any seriously brought up such a topic. We invest in other technologies that give more bang for the buck. There is just no current compelling reason to upgrade to Vista. Partly this is because XP has such a great adoption rate. 9x is nearly dead all around. This is all while working for a company that is in bed with Microsoft amongst others (There are plenty of other MS technologies even MS would rather sell into a business).

But what you need to realize is that Vista is really just a precursor to Windows Server 2008. It's adoption rate and existence in the business world is nearly irrelevant until the later product exists. At that time, newly included technologies like SMB2 (Faster network connections) and even IPV6 would actually be viable for companies to use. Not to say any of those things are even needed (Well maybe SMB2). But Vista serves really as more of an extended trailer in regards to what the Server product will be like.

Also many companies essentially pay for whats called "Software Assurance" or free software upgrades. While they may all own Vista for free, its not free to pay people to deploy it. Technologies that come around to make Vista more manageable and more easily deployable aid in that adoption. Server 2008 is only one of many building blocks for that.

Thats the basics of it....

At home I'm running Vista on four machines.. Vista's anniversay for the business world was back on Nov 1st. I can say too date I've not had any Vista specific issues with anything, even every single Matrix game I've purchased, that didn't come down to the same issues that could exist in XP (Outdated drivers or whatever). While I'm sure there are games that needed patching, even the occasional Matrix games, its a complete exaggeration as even said patches are more commonly very easy and simple ones (And or a simple manner of educating default Vista installers how to elevate their priveledges etc.).

There is only one truth in this world. Microsoft never looses! The only real ground on which they are, or ever have, lost is in Virtualization Technologies. Even with consoles I knew the XBOX 360 would be a huge success over PS3 and was laughed at for a long time while stating that. Now its just accepted fact. It goes deeper than technical product specifics and marketing. One must also factor in ease of development. Thats really Microsofts whole baseline strategy for anything. If you make it easier for people to integrate with, program for, etc. etc. your products you will win in time even if you appear to be loosing in the short run. Thus its just one more reason why Vista will certainly succeed and Macintosh and others will continue to fail.

Viva la Vista!

XP came out a short while after W2k, so it isn't strange that Vista comes out now.

That Vista is not popular in corporate environments isn't strange either. XP has had serious problems with the corporate market due to it being viewed as consumer OS, not as something giving any major benefits to companies (the advertizing hasn't helped and neither has the product activation). Now that that W2k is not receiving any new major updates to address bugs, companies are gradually migrating to XP. Of course there are also companies still migrating from NT4 to W2k. Any sensible company IT admin would not touch any system that works and doesn't cause problem whatever the OS it is running on.

Vista's system requirements and UAC are major headaches for any software company. But this will have to be addressed by any company needing to continue its business, just like Office 2007 support.

As for Mac advertizing:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2005931,00.html

Vista seems to be a failure so far.  Many are putting off buying new PC's because they come with Vista.
 
The computer techs we have for our business hate Vista.  Business PC's can still be purchased with XP for now and many are doing that.  I was also advised that other business machines came with Vista and the ability to downgrade to XP if unhappy with Vista.  Many have done just that.  The Tech company was advised that come January all business PC's must be sold with Vista as well, but it is possible that will change.
 
However, on the plus side.  The tech says wait for the first service pack to come out for Vista before making final judgement.  Like several other windows versions from the past, it is hoped that the "patch" will resolve many of the problems.

ORIGINAL: Veldor
Even with consoles I knew the XBOX 360 would be a huge success over PS3 and was laughed at for a long time while stating that. Now its just accepted fact. Viva la Vista!

I seriously disagree with this statement. The only thing that got 360 going for is that it has 1 year head start and Directx development, personally I prefer OpenGL myself though. Other than that 360 has nothing over PS3. I'm actually owner of the original XBOX and I was thinking if I should go with 360 or PS3, after spending some time doing research I chose PS3 and here is why:

1) PS3hardware is more powerful than 360; PS3 Nvidia graphics card - better hardware better drivers
2) PS3 production quality beats the hell out of 360 (360 is noisy, blue ring/red ring of death problems, heat problems, power cord problems). I can't hear my PS3 at all...it's very quiet and just works.
3) I can upgrade the hardisk myself, all I need is a laptop SATA drive. I did this myself very easy and I won't void my warranty. You can't do this with 360 and adding bigger hardisk to 360 is also more expensive.
4) The PS3 had by default Blu-ray Player...which still after 1 hear is the best Blu-ray Player on the market. 360 does not have HD by default and adding that to your system will actually make it a bit more expensive overall than PS3. 360: Also no game uses HD...they are all using DVD. On PS3 all games are in Blue-Ray (50GB) format.
5) I use my PS3 as a media PC kind of way...copy over my ripped DVD movies in MPEG2 or MPEG4 (Divx codecs coming or it's already there). PS3 has also "5 in 1" memory card reader at least my PS3 60GB version (now 100GB hardisk). I take out my GF digital camera SD card and plug it into the PS3 and I can show the pictures to my family or videos right away
6) PS3: FULL free multiplayer support...none of this Live gold (pay) membership crap on 360
7) Sony Officially supports to install OTHER operating systems on PS3. Meaning I can get PS3 Ubuntu Linux Distro Live CD and I can LEGALY turn it into workstation/Linux server - there is even a menu option on the PS3 sony interface that allows me to boot other OS. I have already tried this, hooking up my regular dell keyboard and logitech mouse. I can either boot to Linux or I can boot to the PS3 OS and play games.
8) Most of the great games on 360 will be eventually on PC. Example Gears of War, Halo 3 I'm sure will be coming as well as Mass Effect just to name few. I already have great PC for games so 360 for me doesn't make sense for me.
9) Sony is STILL selling PS2 and making games for it, which I can as well pretty much about 95% of PS2 games play just fine on my PS3. This tells me PS3 games will be supported for looooooong time to come. I can't say the same thing about my original XBOX. And the way Microsoft acts...I strongly believe once they pull the plug on 360 that will be it for the games as well.

Its true that PS3 doesn't CURRENTLY have as good game selection as 360 but that will change over time...there will be plenty of games on PS3 in the future. The fact that PS3 hardware is more complex (7 CPUs) it takes a bit longer to take advantage of, I have no problem with that.

Peter

ORIGINAL: Peter Fisla

Its true that PS3 doesn't CURRENTLY have as good game selection as 360 but that will change over time...there will be plenty of games on PS3 in the future. The fact that PS3 hardware is more complex (7 CPUs) it takes a bit longer to take advantage of, I have no problem with that.

This is a leap of faith. I own a PS3 as well, so I'm not a 360 fanboy. However, if Sony continues to lose exclusives - and more importantly to me - if 360 games continue to be superior to the PS3 version. The PS3 runs the risk of becoming the next Betamax - arguably technically superior but not what people want. This becomes even more likely IMO if HD-DVD does as well or better than Blue-Ray in the marketplace.

My PS3 is a killer DVD player and a PS2 console. That's all it's used for (I got a great deal on the 60GB version). I own no PS3 games - just rented a couple. Sure they've lowered the price which may help sales but they've also removed backward compatability. Which removes one of the justifications for buying one now. I hope you're right but that 1 year headstart for the 360 is now looking like it will turn into an 18 month lead. If Home flops, or even gets pushed back again, I think the PS3 will be in big trouble.

What I find funny about all this is how the roles reversed in this round of the console wars. MS seems to have emulated the PS2 model whereas Sony seemed to follow the original XBox model. They'll probably both survive the fight but I think the 360 will win this round. And as long as they both survive, consumers should be the beneficiaries of the competition.


edit -
Forgot to add:

6) PS3: FULL free multiplayer support...none of this Live gold (pay) membership crap on 360

This is a great example of "you get what you pay for". Sony's service is free but XBox Live kicks its butt. Free would be great but $5 a month (or less if you shop around) is well worth it for such a superior service. I got 13 months of Live service plus the webcam for only $40. This is why I think "Home" success is very important to the future of the PS3.

I own Macs for music & video editing and I like them just fine.

What I find funny is that Apple has the exact same problems as MS.

My brother also uses them for business. He currently uses three. A Mac w/ Panther for one old program. An Intel Mac w/ Tiger that most of his applications run on. And a new notebook w/ Leopard that none of his applications run on currently (when travelling). Of course Apple's answer to the problem is that he purchase the latest versions of all his programs - some of which don't exist any longer.

As for games, there aren't any for the Mac worth worrying about. Which makes it even easier for Apple to throw stones at MS.

I second this point, Macs have all kinds of problems, especially with legacy programs from OS9. Mac advertising is funny and innovative, but hardly a true comparison of the capabilities of both systems.

I don't know how it can be regarded as failed if it's being sold pre-installed on every new PC and laptop known to man. That's a pretty big market right there.

Sure people with existing PCs or building their own may stay away from Vista, but you pretty much have no choice when buying a laptop or pre-built system.

I expect the new PC/Laptop market is so big MS can only see dollar signs.

I actually have it on my laptop. It's pretty enough and functional, but there are issues (like not being backward compatable with my £400 boxed set of MS Visual Studio tools which I purchased...only wanted the laptop to do development!). Nothing special...but I didn't have the option thrown to me of dual boot or XP...I had to take what was offered in the package.

I suppose they've got nothing to worry about if they force people to use it...

My new Dell Inspiron is working very nicely with VISTA. Like anything else, you just have to learn the differences. Hell, if I was in charge we would all still using DOS 3.11 (oh how I miss the good old days).

ORIGINAL: Peter Fisla
1) PS3hardware is more powerful than 360; PS3 Nvidia graphics card - better hardware better drivers

Irrelevant because more often you develop to the least common denominator and then port. Not enough PS3 exclusive titles to do much otherwise.

2) PS3 production quality beats the hell out of 360 (360 is noisy, blue ring/red ring of death problems, heat problems, power cord problems). I can't hear my PS3 at all...it's very quiet and just works.

I've none of those problems with the 360. People on the net love to whine. The problems are grossly exaggerated like any. Some "claim" everyone they know is on their 4th 360. Well everyone I know is still on their first. Not putting it inside a sealed entertainment center helps.. It is essentially a PC afterall.

3) I can upgrade the hardisk myself, all I need is a laptop SATA drive. I did this myself very easy and I won't void my warranty. You can't do this with 360 and adding bigger hardisk to 360 is also more expensive.

There is more to do with the harddrive space on a 360. All the arcade game area downloads, better selection of online movies and demos, etc. But the drive is overpriced. No question there.

4) The PS3 had by default Blu-ray Player...which still after 1 hear is the best Blu-ray Player on the market. 360 does not have HD by default and adding that to your system will actually make it a bit more expensive overall than PS3. 360: Also no game uses HD...they are all using DVD. On PS3 all games are in Blue-Ray (50GB) format.

Then why do games still look better on the 360? Id rather have a choice of format instead of being forced to one or the other. Sony banked on people wanting that Blu-ray player and its a significant reason why sales were low until the recent price slash.

5) I use my PS3 as a media PC kind of way...copy over my ripped DVD movies in MPEG2 or MPEG4 (Divx codecs coming or it's already there). PS3 has also "5 in 1" memory card reader at least my PS3 60GB version (now 100GB hardisk). I take out my GF digital camera SD card and plug it into the PS3 and I can show the pictures to my family or videos right away

The 360 interface for this is far superior. And it integrates with Vista 100% running the exact same Media Center Vista came with (written from scratch). It allows you to stream all the content from your PC so not taking up any space on the console. I keep all my music on my pc but can play it either there or through my Bose System attached to the TV/360. Same with movies etc. This wasn't available till a later free 360 software upgrade so its left out of many reviews/comments.

6) PS3: FULL free multiplayer support...none of this Live gold (pay) membership crap on 360

Yes because after paying $700 for a PS3 you can't afford $40 a year membership

7) Sony Officially supports to install OTHER operating systems on PS3. Meaning I can get PS3 Ubuntu Linux Distro Live CD and I can LEGALY turn it into workstation/Linux server - there is even a menu option on the PS3 sony interface that allows me to boot other OS. I have already tried this, hooking up my regular dell keyboard and logitech mouse. I can either boot to Linux or I can boot to the PS3 OS and play games.

You can't be serious. Having this ability hardly makes the device superior. Its fun to geek out and do it but no practical uses for the average buyer not trying to impress his geek friends.

8) Most of the great games on 360 will be eventually on PC. Example Gears of War, Halo 3 I'm sure will be coming as well as Mass Effect just to name few. I already have great PC for games so 360 for me doesn't make sense for me.

They look and play better on the 360. Which is exactly why you buy a console. Not just to get games not otherwise available. Also a console game keeps its value. I guarantee I can part with my 360 Shadowrun for a heck of a lot more on ebay than its PC equivelant.

9) Sony is STILL selling PS2 and making games for it, which I can as well pretty much about 95% of PS2 games play just fine on my PS3. This tells me PS3 games will be supported for looooooong time to come. I can't say the same thing about my original XBOX. And the way Microsoft acts...I strongly believe once they pull the plug on 360 that will be it for the games as well.

Thats as much in developers hands as it is Sony or MS. They still make XBOX Games. The Burger King XBOX Game line sold millions!

Its true that PS3 doesn't CURRENTLY have as good game selection as 360 but that will change over time...there will be plenty of games on PS3 in the future. The fact that PS3 hardware is more complex (7 CPUs) it takes a bit longer to take advantage of, I have no problem with that.

Change over time? Time is already up. MS is halfway to the next gen console being done. Sony's last chance to salvage the PS3 is this christmas. They can't fix whats gone wrong without getting more exclusive titles. And thats just not going to happen with the way things are now.

Sorry, no PS3 purchaser wants to think it, but they are done for. Once Microsoft conquers something they never loose ground. And it sure isn't gonna happen here. They have too much $$$$ and relationships to pour into developer incentives and other things the buying public never even hears about. When you add the fact that you can develop ONE game for BOTH PC and XBOX with essentially the same code.. Now as a developer you double your market.

No its only gonna go more and more in the MS direction...

Still, the PS3 serves nicely as a Blu-ray player, so its not a total loss [:D]

[/quote]

Eventually everyone will buy vista and like it, because microsoft has ways to make you do that. Sooner or later you will have no choice left.

I bought new XP to replace 98 last Xmas - I got a $30 upgrade to Vista with it, which I bought.  the Vista remains uninstalled - XP is operating fine - why would I want to go through the hoops ofhaving to learn another sytem, update drivers, etc????[&:]