Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Steam Survey Takes PC Gaming's Pulse

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the what's-under-the-hood dept.

PC Games (Games) 172

Via Rock Paper Shotgun and Primotech, the latest in Valve's ongoing PC hardware survey via the Steam service. Some very interesting stuff in there, though probably nothing too surprising. From RPS's analysis: "Vista has shown a small increase in representation, but clearly nowhere near where Microsoft would have desperately hoped. Previously 7.99% of gamers were using the latest operating system. Now it's 16.91%, with a vast 81.13% sticking with XP. Rather confirming Valve's position on DX10, and what a massive waste of time it is developing for Vista only."

cancel ×

172 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

MS should reconsider DX10 for XP (5, Insightful)

Dunkz (901542) | more than 6 years ago | (#21353891)

If it hasn't become apparent that DX10 is not a reason folks will "upgrade" to Vista by now I don't know what else to say.

They should allow XP users to download and use DX10 as they have all along for other revisions of DirectX.

Re:MS should reconsider DX10 for XP (5, Funny)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354043)

I'm hoping that with DX10 as a dead end and openGL available for everyone while still progressing that we'll see more open work in the future. I also want world peace, true love and a pony.

Re:MS should reconsider DX10 for XP (0, Redundant)

kc2keo (694222) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354157)

I'm hoping for more game publishers to use open source projects for development. Its kind of a pain to boot to WinXP from Linux. Yes I know there is Wine and Cedega but its not always the solution...

Re:MS should reconsider DX10 for XP (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21354589)

I want to mod you "+1 Redundant".

Re:MS should reconsider DX10 for XP (1)

Some_Llama (763766) | more than 6 years ago | (#21355483)

Well at least 3 out of 4 of your dreams have a chance of coming true.

Re:MS should reconsider DX10 for XP (2, Funny)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354059)

Vista reminds me of a song from the 80s called "Gloria"

specifically the line:
"If everybody wants you, why isn't anybody calling?"

Re:MS should reconsider DX10 for XP (5, Insightful)

Chosen Reject (842143) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354145)

This might sound odd, but if DX10 was available on XP, I would be more willing to look into Vista. By keeping DX10 Vista only, they tell me there is nothing in Vista worth upgrading to except DX10, but if it's on XP, then they are saying Vista can stand on its own compared to XP.

Granted, it still wouldn't get me to buy it, but that would remove at least one barrier.

Re:MS should reconsider DX10 for XP (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354213)

This might sound odd, but if DX10 was available on XP, I would be more willing to look into Vista. By keeping DX10 Vista only, they tell me there is nothing in Vista worth upgrading to except DX10, but if it's on XP, then they are saying Vista can stand on its own compared to XP.

That's just stupid logic. Keeping feature x restricted to the new OS means there aren't any other features in Vista? Who would upgrade just for DX10 anyway? You REALLY think MS was hoping people would?

I believe they were hoping that, combined with the other new features, DX10 would be one of many reasons to upgrade.

Re:MS should reconsider DX10 for XP (2, Insightful)

Chosen Reject (842143) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354489)

You are right in that keeping feature X restricted to an OS does not by itself say there isn't any other reason to upgrade. But when feature X has historically not been restricted to the new OS, then it does start to look like that. Then you have the OS and feature X maker claiming that it is for technical reasons, yet you have the Alky Project that has a version (admittedly alpha) of feature X working on the restricted OS even though they don't have the source code to actually do proper porting, then it really starts to look like the only reason for feature X being restricted is to make the new OS actually worth anything.

Re:MS should reconsider DX10 for XP (2, Insightful)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354799)

Even if there's no technical reason, your logic is still faulty. Feature X is ONE OF MANY new features. That doesn't mean its the only reason the new version is worthwhile, it is there to ADD to the list of features that make the new version worthwhile.

Take a vacuum cleaner; a newer model has a more powerful motor that would work perfectly in the older model. In addition, there are more attachments (or whatever) that actually do only work with the newer model. The older model is still in use, and they could sell the motor to people that had it, so does that mean the other new features on the new vacuum aren't worthwhile? Of course not.

Re:MS should reconsider DX10 for XP (4, Funny)

grahamd0 (1129971) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354925)

Bravo. I wish there was a "+1 Didn't use a car analogy" mod.

Re:MS should reconsider DX10 for XP (5, Insightful)

Chosen Reject (842143) | more than 6 years ago | (#21355049)

The reason they won't backport DX10 is to make it an incentive to buy Vista, of this there is no doubt. However, MS has always backported new versions of DX to their previous releases. The latest nonDX10 version is available for Windows 98 for crying out loud. So now you have a feature that has never been (Windows) OS dependent that suddenly becomes so for "technical reasons," but every day we learn more and more that it was a complete lie. That says to me that it is one of Vista's only selling points. If there really were technical reasons then I could accept that. If it weren't technical reasons and they never said that it was, then I might think differently. Unfortunately, they lied that it was technical reasons when it really wasn't. That says to me that Vista has nothing worth upgrading for except DX10.

Both of those concepts have to be realized together. They've always backported DirectX to their supported systems AND they lied that it was technical reasons they couldn't do it this time. Why are they lying? If they had just come right out and said "DirectX 10 is only on Vista so that we can add another reason to the already long list of worthy upgrades" then I would understand that, but that's not what they did. They came out and gave us the lie "We aren't going to backport DX10 like we've done with all other versions because it's technically not possible." That says to me that they don't have a long list of reasons to upgrade, they have DX10.

That said, even if they did backport it and admit they lied, I still wouldn't buy Vista.

Re:MS should reconsider DX10 for XP (1)

homer_ca (144738) | more than 6 years ago | (#21355669)

Don't worry, if they don't have the carrot of DX10, they'll still have the stick of support end-of-life to force upgrades. Have fun surfing the net with an unpatched, EOL OS. I know XP won't be end of life until 2012, but four years isn't a whole lot of time to release Windows 7 if Vista bombs and everybody skips it.

Re:MS should reconsider DX10 for XP (1)

frovingslosh (582462) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354163)

It might happen, but to do so Microsoft would either have to admit that they lied when they claimed that DX10 could not be made to work on XP, or come up with some creative new lie about why it suddenly can. They have no real incentive to do this; it's not as if they care about their XP customers.

Re:MS should reconsider DX10 for XP (4, Informative)

nuzak (959558) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354421)

As DX10 is implemented now, it can't work on XP, since relies on Vista usermode drivers. They can port it, feature for feature, of course (and some enterprising folks apparently already have to some degree).

Besides, we're all pretty used to companies changing their stories [penny-arcade.com] . We let 'em have their justifications as long as they deliver.

Re:MS should reconsider DX10 for XP (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21354445)

They have no real incentive to do this; it's not as if they care about their customers.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:MS should reconsider DX10 for XP (2, Informative)

Dr. Eggman (932300) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354523)

As much as I would like to see it happen, there actually are technical challenges to just straight getting Direct3D 10 on XP. While we certainly now know that it is possible to see the same pretty graphics, Direct3D 10 itself is not a possibility on XP without major overhauls. Shiny DirectX 10 Graphics you get from Direct3D 10 are, but not Direct3D 10 itself, since Microsoft has zero incentive to do the kind of work necessary to get it to work on XP, no matter how small Vista usage is. This Beyond3D [beyond3d.com] article explains why.

Re:MS should reconsider DX10 for XP (1)

bigdavex (155746) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354673)

If it hasn't become apparent that DX10 is not a reason folks will "upgrade" to Vista by now I don't know what else to say.

They should allow XP users to download and use DX10 as they have all along for other revisions of DirectX.

If DX10 is valuable to the gamer, couldn't MS license it the game companies?
   

Re:MS should reconsider DX10 for XP (1)

TheSambassador (1134253) | more than 6 years ago | (#21355315)

What motivation would Microsoft have to do that? DirectX 10 is a gimmick now... if they gave it to XP users we'd have no reason to switch (and buy) Vista. They don't really gain anything by allowing DX10 on XP.

Vacuum (1)

Lulfas (1140109) | more than 6 years ago | (#21353913)

Those numbers in a vacuum don't mean anything though. What was the upgrade rate from ME/2k to XP? Also, I don't know whether they do or not, but if they're complaining about developing only for Vista, I sure hope they don't have anything that is *nix/Mac compatible, as Vista easily beat every flavor of those.

Re:Vacuum (1)

C0rinthian (770164) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354025)

Those numbers in a vacuum don't mean anything though. What was the upgrade rate from ME/2k to XP? Also, I don't know whether they do or not, but if they're complaining about developing only for Vista, I sure hope they don't have anything that is *nix/Mac compatible, as Vista easily beat every flavor of those.
Steam is Windows only, so I'd be suprised if you see any numbers for mac or linux. (Okay, they have linux versions of their dedicated server software)

Re:Vacuum (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21355065)

There are actually a good amount of us Linux Gamers. We use WINE to run them. Our numbers wont show up in steam as Linux, because the OS detection wont detect it as Linux. Some Mac people also do this. If companies would use OpenGL instead of DirectX, it would be very easy to port the game to a different OS, it would mostly be recompiling source code. If companies would start being smart and not making their software for only Windows, they would make a lot more money.

Re:Vacuum (3, Insightful)

C0rinthian (770164) | more than 6 years ago | (#21355365)

There are actually a good amount of us Linux Gamers. We use WINE to run them. Our numbers wont show up in steam as Linux, because the OS detection wont detect it as Linux. Some Mac people also do this. If companies would use OpenGL instead of DirectX, it would be very easy to port the game to a different OS, it would mostly be recompiling source code. If companies would start being smart and not making their software for only Windows, they would make a lot more money.
You missed my point. GP stated that Mac/linux showed lower numbers than Vista. I pointed out that is because Valve doesn't make anything for Mac/Linux. (hence no users)

I'm well aware of the existance of linux and mac gamers. I personally use a Mac. And your post simply reinforces my opinion that WINE is a bad thing. Why should software manufacturers make platform agnostic code when users are willing to run under Cedega/WINE?

Re:Vacuum (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21354071)

They don't.

Except for dedicated server binaries, which hardly counts.

Re:Vacuum (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21354309)

You're ignoring the vast amount of people running Steam under wine/crossover/cedega.

Re:Vacuum (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21354967)

vast = three

Re:Vacuum (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21355283)

Yeah, but those three guys are *really* fat, so vast is apt.

Re:Vacuum (1)

Gothic_Walrus (692125) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354495)

What was the upgrade rate from ME/2k to XP?

Considering that Steam didn't exist until a few years after XP launched, you're going to be hard-pressed to find that data. In any case, I don't think that the numbers are completely useless - from my experience, my friends who are hardcore PC gamers are the only ones who rush out to upgrade right away. Everyone else just seems to wait until they have to buy a new computer, at which point Vista isn't optional anymore.

There are reasons to upgrade to Vista...they just don't matter to most of the people I know.

Compared to the spring results (5, Informative)

Nos. (179609) | more than 6 years ago | (#21353931)

Its interesting to compare some of the results from the Spring 2007 survey (http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey_v6.html):
  • RAM went way up, almost 1/2 are using 2GB or more.
  • AMD is losing more ground with Intel up almost 4%
  • Almost 1/2 of gamers are using more than one physical CPU now (which includes dual/quad core)
  • Nvidia has taken a bigger lead at the expense of ATI
Obviously an increase in system RAM and CPU numbers/speed is expected, but this is only over about a 6 month period.

Re:Compared to the spring results (1)

Dr. Eggman (932300) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354567)

Two words: Summer Jobs. Kids who can't afford to upgrade very often are going to make huge leaps, but only when they have the money to do so. Many of them probably saw the awesome lineup coming for the fall and set about saving up during their summer job to update their systems.

Having played too much TF2... (3, Funny)

My name is Bucket (1020933) | more than 6 years ago | (#21353953)

I was much more fascinated/saddened/aroused by the fact that I instantly knew the TF2 screenshot from the article was in Dustbowl-- right around the corner from the final cap-- and was on to estimating that Spy's chance of survival (noticing that the sentry hasn't tracked him yet).

Re:Having played too much TF2... (0, Offtopic)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354245)

I was much more fascinated/saddened/aroused by the fact that I instantly knew the TF2 screenshot from the article was in Dustbowl-- right around the corner from the final cap-- and was on to estimating that Spy's chance of survival (noticing that the sentry hasn't tracked him yet).

Wow, yeah.. Makes me wanna stay away from that game now.

Missing data? (2, Interesting)

Sparr0 (451780) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354017)

Last time I saw this, the screen resolution section listed 1280x800, but not 1280x960. Now it lists 1280x960, but not 1280x800. And it has never listed 1280x1024, which happens to be the resolution that over 90% of the steam users that i know use. The "Other" category is not large enough to cover these discrepancies. And, to top that off, there isnt even a category for 5:4 aspect monitor sizes. Are those people getting lumped into the 4:3 ratio section? WTF all around

Re:Missing data? (1)

Winckle (870180) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354085)

I'm with you on that one, until last week I used 1280x1024, it's a common resolution on cheap 19" monitors, or in my case an old expensive 17" monitor.

I use 1440x900 now, the default res on a macbook pro.

Lay off the crack. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21354299)

Only shitty low-end LCDs run 1280x1024. And only an idiot would consider that acceptable. There's a reason everything moved to wide screen aspect ratios, it fits our natural field of vision better. What kind of moron is going to intentionally get a narrow screen aspect ratio monitor? They are only acceptable if you have two of them, and don't play games.

Re:Lay off the crack. (1)

Kasis (918962) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354929)

Dickhead.

I have not yet replaced my expensive, high quality 4:3 CRT monitor with a widescreen LCD for the simple reason that a comparable LCD monitor would be prohibitively expensive.

I use 1280x1024 because it offers the optimum experience for my hardware.

Re:Lay off the crack. (1)

Khue (625846) | more than 6 years ago | (#21355317)

I tend to use a lower res then what the norm uses simply for performance reasons. I have dual vid cards but I play at 1024x768. Even though it may look pretty at high res in FPS i want response time and high frame rates.

Re:Lay off the crack. (1)

Some_Llama (763766) | more than 6 years ago | (#21355945)

I felt the same way as you but since i have 4 systems in my house, all frequently being used.. I was able to soothe my conscience by the fact that an LCD uses 1/2 the power of a CRT, i bought 2 LCDs as replacements and have seen savings of up to 30-40 bucks a month in our power bill.

along with replacing all of the bulbs in my house with CFL, i'm paying about 100-120 less than i did the same time last year.

So while an LCD might set you back 200 for a good one with max 1280x1024 res and 4:3 ratio, this will pay for itself in less than a year or sooner depending on how much you use it... esp if 1028x1024 is the only res you are using.

Re:Lay off the crack. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21356111)

I have to agree with the first AC. You're an idiot.

1280x1024 is NOT a 4:3 ratio definition. It's 5:4. Im not aware of any CRT ever manufactured with a 5:4 aspect ratio. Only shitty LCD's from several years ago used them (and probably a few really shitty ones these days).

If you are using 1280x1024 on your 4:3 ratio CRT you are getting a distorted "squashed" image. The proper comparable resolution for your monitor is 1280x960. (Hint: 1280/960 = 4/3)

Waste of time? (-1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354075)

If 20% (roughly) of Windows users are using Vista, and Valve considers it a colossal waste of time to do DX10 development, they have a strange idea of "colossal waste of time". I consider 20% of my userbase well worth development time. Not to mention that the numbers will go up eventually... I guarantee you that all but the most die-hard Vista-hating gamers would flock to Vista if a) enough games had sweet DX10 graphics, and b) some hot new game was DX10/Vista only (no, Halo 2 doesn't count here. While I built my new computer for Vista because of Halo 2, I certainly would never upgrade from an existing copy of XP for a port of a 3-year-old Xbox game).

Re:Waste of time? (1)

Lulfas (1140109) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354159)

While 20% is definitely a high enough number to worry with, consider other options. You can design for XP, which then runs on Vista just fine. Or you can design for Vista, which won't work on the XP system.

Re:Waste of time? (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354273)

No one says they're mutually exclusive. Hell, doesn't Valve make games which gracefully degrade to DX8/7? Should be no trouble to make a game which supports DX7/8/9/10, as long as you're already supporting 3 of those. I don't think anyone should be making their games DX10 only, but not using both DX9 and DX10 strikes me as needlessly stubborn about not using DX10.

Re:Waste of time? (1)

momfreeek (720443) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354283)

"I guarantee you that all but the most die-hard Vista-hating gamers would flock to Vista if a) enough games had sweet DX10 graphics, and b) some hot new game was DX10/Vista only"

- Its not in Valve's interests to push DX10/Vista.. its in their interests to sell as many games as possible.

"sweet DX10 graphics,"

- How much better is DX10 than DX9 really?

Re:Waste of time? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21354393)

How much better is DX10 than DX9 really?

According to most game reviews I've seen, you get prettier shadows, a lot of slowdown and not much else with DX10.

Re:Waste of time? (1)

lgw (121541) | more than 6 years ago | (#21355309)

According to most game reviews I've seen, you get prettier shadows, a lot of slowdown and not much else with DX10.
Now that's simply false. You also get *way* more crashes with DX10 and Vista!

Re:Waste of time? (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354291)

What makes you think that the advantages that DX10 has over DX9 are even worth the hassle?

Re:Waste of time? (5, Informative)

Chosen Reject (842143) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354379)

Having Vista is only half of it, though. Right under "Windows version" is this
  • DirectX10 Systems (Vista with DirectX10 GPU) - 9.00% of users
So 20% have Vista, and some odd % have DX10 cards and the intersection of those two groups is 9%. Is it worth it now to create a whole rendering path that is only usable to 9% of your users? From the last survey they did there was only 2.31% of DX10 systems. That was 8 months ago. So if every 8 months DX10 systems goes up 6.5% then maybe it will be worth it for them to make Episode 3 DX10, but even then my guess is for just an episode that would be a waste of time. No, I suspect that Half Life 3 or whatever might be DX10 capable, but I wouldn't expect it for Episode 3.

Having said that, I think they ought to port it to Linux and Mac. They already have their engine running on the PS3 (which means it isn't using DX at all) so it can't be that hard.

Re:Waste of time? (2, Insightful)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354597)

You think 9% of gamers is too low to mess with, but Mac/Linux gamers (not just users), which is bound to be even lower, is worth it somehow? Your logic confuses me.

Re:Waste of time? (1)

Nos. (179609) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354703)

By not developing for DX10 users, you're not removing them from your customer base. They are still able to buy, and fully enjoy the game. By not developing for Mac/Linux users, you ARE removing them from your customer base (with the obvious eceptions of things like WINE and Cedegra)

Re:Waste of time? (2, Interesting)

Chosen Reject (842143) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354735)

I admit that I wasn't clear on that. In the first paragraph I'm saying that Valve probably doesn't think it's worth it and probably won't for Episode 3 either. In the second paragraph I was just throwing out my wants and wishes without any regard as to whether Valve would think it is worth it.

Even so, it is still a different thing. Adding DX10 capabilities to their engine makes their games slightly prettier for people who can already run it. Adding Mac/Linux support increases their customer base. I know that a lot of people already use Wine/Cedega to get it running on Linux, but I'm sure there are more people who would buy a Valve game just because it runs on Mac/Linux, then there are people who would just because it supports DX10. More specifically, I'm sure there are more people who haven't bought Valve games because they aren't on Mac/Linux than there are people who haven't bought them because they aren't DX10 capable.

Re:Waste of time? (1)

Firethorn (177587) | more than 6 years ago | (#21355397)

Adding DX10 capabilities to their engine makes their games slightly prettier for people who can already run it

While I deliberately installed XP on my newest system, I just did some searching for 'DX9 vs DX10'.

Except for Crysis, which they point out that the game developers turned off a number of DX9.0c features to emphasize the difference, it's a bunch of 'meh' at this time. 20fps penalty for differences you need to pour over stillframes to see, much less see while playing a game where you're concentrating on staying alive while killing your latest round of opponents.

While this may change in the future, indeed it probably will, it looks like Vista is another ME. It doesn't answer any pressing needs on behalf of either gamers or corporate users.

Microsoft would have probably been better off working on creating a 64bit operating system that's more compatible with 32bit versions.

Given the '3GB' limit on memory* in windows style 32bit systems, that's the barrier we're currently bumping against.

But it's going to be a while before decently programmed** software will benefit more from the additional memory available vs the performance hit by using 64bit pointers vs 32 bit.

Given the way the market looks to be heading, I wouldn't be surprised to see non-microsoft affiliated games require a 64bit OS before they require DX10. As for the microsoft affiliated games that require DX10 and therefore Vista - I didn't buy them.

*Sure, it can address 4GB, but various memory holes like the video card eat about a gig.
**By all indications, not Vista

Re:Waste of time? (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354913)

I think you'll find that Linux usage would be higher then 9% because most Linux users are gamers. I wouldn't say the same for Mac users though as I think a lot less Mac users are gamers.

Re:Waste of time? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21355637)

I think you'll find that Linux usage would be higher then 9% because most Linux users are gamers.
If you want to pull statistics out of your ass, feel free, but do at least wash them first, cuz that one stinks.

I think most Linux users are probably corporate server administrators. I think most home Linux users, if gamers, either game on consoles (so don't care about Linux games) or dual-boot to Windows (so don't care about Linux games).

I think the number of Linux users who care about gaming in Linux is a tiny minority of a tiny minority, and the only way they'll ever get games is by the efforts of companies like Transgaming that have found a way to exploit this tiny niche.

Of course, I have no sources for my claims. The difference between my baseless speculation and yours is that I admit I'm speculating...

Re:Waste of time? (1)

lonesome_coder (1166023) | more than 6 years ago | (#21355329)

You think 9% of gamers is too low to mess with, but Mac/Linux gamers (not just users), which is bound to be even lower , is worth it somehow?
How is it BOUND to be even lower? I fail to see how you jump to this conclusion.

As has been mentioned several times over, the majority of Linux users are avid gamers. Unfortunately, to get our fix on most games, WINE or Cedega has to be part of this equation. Using WINE will identify to your (Windows) software that it is running on whatever version of Windows you set it to act like, which in turn would skew results of surveys like this.

If I am missing something, let me know...I'm still relatively new to the Linux scene, and I don't plan on leaving it.

Re:Waste of time? (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 6 years ago | (#21355681)

No matter what the percentage of Mac/Linux gamers is (relative to the whole), it will still be 100%. This is especially going to be true on the Mac, which is the more "mainstream" of the two underdog platforms, and has a lot more (forgive the term) noob users who are unlikely to have much of a gaming interest. Thus, since Mac/Linux users have a really low market share to begin with, I don't feel it's at all unreasonable to say that Mac/Linux gamers are = 9% of the market.

Linux is a *better* gaming platform in some ways (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21356133)

I dual boot Vista and Ubuntu on my laptop. I play the games I can under Linux, and the rest under Vista. One thing I can say is that, in my experience so far, the games that do run on Linux (native ports only - I don't bother with Cedega - tried it once a long time ago and found it a pain in the arse), tend to run much faster and smoother. I've seen a few graphics glitches, but if I ever get around to upgrading to more recent nVidia drivers, I think those'll go away. I currently show up as "Vista" in the Steam survey, but if I could, I'd be Linux. It's really hard to make predictions about what the representation of Linux users would be when it is NOT EVEN AN OPTION.

I will say this about the Source engine though - even on Vista it runs great for me, so it's not a huge loss, in this case, because valve did such a great job of optimizing the engine (but I'd still like to run it under Linux). To contrast, I've tried playing Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory under Vista and the experience was *terrible* (under Linux ET runs beautifully though).

I wish more companies would release native ports of the games for Linux. Everyone says that Linux is this tiny percentage of the gaming market, but if companies supported it, it wouldn't be for long. I really think that it makes a much better technical platform for high-end games than any flavor of Windows, because it (usually) has a lot less crap running in the background (yes, it's possible to run a bunch of crap in the background that would kill your performance, but a basic setup doesn't *require* as many crap services as Vista does).

If hardware and software companies support Linux better, I think gamers would *flock* to it.

Re:Waste of time? (1)

hal2814 (725639) | more than 6 years ago | (#21355389)

"Is it worth it now to create a whole rendering path that is only usable to 9% of your users?"

Right. Vista users who don't have DirectX 10 preinstalled can no longer install it? Has anyone ever even installed a version DirectX by itself? Every time I've upgraded versions is because I'm installing a game and it tells me I need to (and then runs the DX installer for me). If Valve were actively developing for DX10, that 9% would shoot up to almost the entire Vista userbase.

Re:Waste of time? (1)

Chosen Reject (842143) | more than 6 years ago | (#21355599)

I'm not sure I follow what you are saying here. Vista users can install DX10, but they need a DX10 capable card in order to use any of its features. Vista plus an Nvidia 7900 or ATI x1950 won't do it. You need Vista plus a DX10 capable GPU in order to have DX10.

So are you saying that if Valve developed for DX10 that all of the Vista user base would rush out to buy a $250+ graphics card? Eventually I suppose that would be the case. But that's the whole issue. Eventually (big assumption here) Vista's installed base will look like XP currently, but right now it doesn't.

So Valve is saying that there is a lot of effort into putting in a DX10 path into their code, but only 9% of people right now could use it, and even those people aren't going to see a large improvement in the graphics. This is partly due to DX10 not being a large improvement and especially true since Valve has already made those improvements on DX9 cards.

Re:Waste of time? (1)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356119)

I think you misunderstand. It's not that the Vista users haven't upgraded to DX10... it's that they don't have a DX10 capable graphics card. And that isn't a casual upgrade.

Re:Waste of time? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21355519)

Say, does DX10 run on the Xbox 360? Because I've heard that machine is running W2K. So there's no real technical obstacle to porting DX10 to XP, just Microsoft being bullheaded as usual.

Another thing, people report that running the Crysis demo with the "-dx9" flag - using DX9 instead of DX10 - results in vastly better performance.

Re:Waste of time? (1)

Chosen Reject (842143) | more than 6 years ago | (#21355677)

Actually, the Xbox360 uses an advanced version of DX 9, not 10. However, there still is no technical reason why it can't be ported to XP.

Reports all over the internet for all sorts of games suggest that DX10 is terrible on performance and not worth it for the slight upgrade in graphics. This is not a Crysis-only thing.

Re:Waste of time? (1)

patternmatch (951637) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354385)

Rather confirming Valve's position on DX10, and what a massive waste of time it is developing for Vista only.

Re:Waste of time? (4, Interesting)

spyrochaete (707033) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354407)

I like Valve's knack for programming top notch effects for lowest common denominator hardware. For instance, instead of conforming to audio standards like EAX and ASIO they built a custom sound engine that supports and/or emulates the requisite effects. Also, Source Engine games are the only ones that can use both antialiasing and HDR on my GeForce 7950GT - NVidia themselves claimed this to be a limitation of this hardware yet Valve proved them wrong.

If Valve can achieve top-end results with middle-end (is middle an end?) hardware then more power to them!

You are misunderstanding. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21354449)

By writing a game for dx10, you are limiting yourself to that little 20% section of users. By using directx9, or opengel, you still get those same 20% of users, but you also can get 90+% of the other users as well. Which is better, 99% of potential users, or 20%?

Re:You are misunderstanding. (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354621)

Again, there is absolutely no reason you can't use both. None. You may choose not to, but you are still perfectly capable of having both DX9 and DX10 capabilities.

Re:You are misunderstanding. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21354941)

Sure, and you just wrote your entire rendering engine twice and go absolutely no benfit for it. Like valve says, big waste of resources.

Re:Waste of time? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21354525)

Sure 16.56% of respondents to a survey taken through steam, a gaming platform mostly used by what would be considered "hardcore" gamers, seems impressive. Until you realize most people using steam are not a large % of the overall computer using populace. Not to mention DirectX10 Systems (Vista with DirectX10 GPU) - 9.00% of users Less than 1 out of 10 "hardcore" gamers are capable of running DX10 level graphics. How exactly do you sell that to management? Well boss we can make the game look barely any better and sell it to 10% of our user base while increasing our budget only 2%. Then there is the fact that in Crysis you can cut & paste the settings from dx10 Very High into the dx9 High and it runs fine if you have fast dx9 hardware. So far dx10 is a wash and saying something as obvious as Not to mention that the numbers will go up eventually... just makes me wonder why you even posted.

poor survery data.. (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354141)

Not that I don't agree with the article but I run steam using wine and it doesn't show that I am using Ubuntu on Valve's survey statistics. Also not all gamers play steam games so you're only measuring their own player base.

I still agree with the conclusion building your game just for one OS is just stupid if you want to make money.

Re:poor survery data.. (1)

Gothic_Walrus (692125) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354533)

I still agree with the conclusion building your game just for one OS is just stupid if you want to make money.

Valve doesn't seem hard-pressed there.

And while they might not support the minority that use Linux and Apple OSes, I would assume that supporting the consoles instead (which they are doing) would bring in more money. Much more money.

Re:poor survery data.. (3, Insightful)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354791)

And while they might not support the minority that use Linux and Apple OSes, I would assume that supporting the consoles instead (which they are doing) would bring in more money. Much more money.
Indeed, there is no question that consoles is where they make the most money on a AAA title.

I bet you if there was an officially supported version of steam that ran on Linux (via wine or whatever) it would have a higher percentage of use then Vista has as most Linux users are computer enthusiasts and gamers. Although Macs probably have a bigger user base not many are gamers.

Re:poor survery data.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21355685)

I still agree with the conclusion building your game just for one OS is just stupid if you want to make money.

Yes, I'm sure that the folks at Valve are crying themselves to sleep at night wondering why they're not making any money. If only they had taken the time to rewrite their game engine to run on an operating system that was only used by a tiny fraction of their audience...!

Couldn't get it to work (3, Interesting)

taquitosgmail.com (876560) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354253)

I recently (less than a week ago) built a gaming machine for my birthday and decided to buy Vista Ultimate. Strangely, I couldn't get the HL survey uploader to send the data back to Valve. Everything else works just fine though. Maybe other people are having similar issues? for the curious its running on an E6850, 2GB 1066, 500gb, 8800GTS-640oc. I really wanted to upload the info to help skew the results :)

Re:Couldn't get it to work (1)

spyrochaete (707033) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354473)

I wasn't able to submit the Steam survey either for some reason. I'm running Windows XP and I was able to successfully submit these surveys in the past. Maybe one of their servers was having trouble or something.

Dos (5, Interesting)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354269)

Falcon 3.0 (please don't hang me on the number at my age the mind is becoming more and more like a) required me to upgrade to a new Dos. (5?)I did. (legally too)

That was the last time a game pushed me on a new MS release.

Back then 99% of games were DOS, only a handfull of games required Windows (3.X) and most DOS games ran a lot faster without windows loaded.

This didn't change for a long time even with the release of Windows 95. Quake was an important game back then,and running it under 95 just meant you sacrificed a lot memory the game could have been using. There was no benefit I can remember, and so I stuck with DOS for a long time. I have no recollection how long it took between 95's release and me finally getting and seeing games that were WIN95 only AND worth it. But it was at least a year.

Remember that dos to WIN95 was a HUGE change.

DirectX must have been introduced at some time, but I don't recall it being widely used until it was a couple of major releases old. Even MS own games didn't use it for a long time. MS Flightsimulator and Close Combat come to mind. In fact, MS games were notorious for being rather primitive, Close Combat was one of those games were you had to manuall set the desktop to reduced colors, this was AFTER DirectX had gotten some traction.

But we moved away from DOS, we now have DirectX games mostly and one day Vista will be the norm and so will DirectX 10, because just as games once become Windows9X only and games became DirectX only, so will they become Vista only and DirectX10 only.

The article notes that Vista has only 18% users. This is very noteworthy, but check the chart, how many Windows 9X users? For that many 2000 users? 9X ain't even listed, 2000 doesn't even get a full percentage.

Remember all the people who said they would stick with 9X or 2K? Where are they now? Not on steam at least.

We move on. I won't be getting Vista for a while, I like my linux desktop and for games I don't need it. Yet.

I think the biggest thing hurting MS at the moment is NOT Vista's tech woes, but something far more deadly. It is piracy. It ain't there. I am a freak for trying the latest software, but I also hate cripple ware and store bought machines, so I either look at spending a couple of hundred euro's on Vista because all the pirated versions seem to have problems.

How much of MS old early adoptor market consisted of pirates? I got 95Se 98 98SE 2K etc ALL from that subscription thing an old employer had. Illegal, sure. But those machines showed up in surveys like this. How any Steam players would run Vista if they could?

More and more games will be directx 10, or will look at their best in directx10. Support for XP will dry up, new computers will come with Vista pre-installed and people will move on.

Just as we did before.

The only difference as I have said is that this time it will be a lot harder to do it without paying MS, and for some of us, that is a big hurdle. I wouldn't mind trying Vista, it is not like I use my gaming machine for anything critical, but not for the current price tag.

But some day? Sure, if I can find an unused key somewhere for a non-crippled version. Because lets admit it, I want to see how shiny it is. Precious...

Re:Dos (3, Insightful)

lgw (121541) | more than 6 years ago | (#21355387)

Early DX was not in the kernel, and so was too slow for a FPS, and game studios ignored it. Starcraft was the first game I can rememeber running under DX, and was certainly the best game available for NT 4.0 in its day.

Eventually MS moved DX into the kernel, and suddenly games ran fine under DX and everyone switched. DX quickly overcame OpenGL in popularity. This was the age of DX.

Now history repeats, and DX10 is back out of the kernel (user-mode driver architecture) and it's slow and game studios are ignoring it. What were the odds?

Re:Dos (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21356059)

I had thought that DirectX had originally been done by a 3rd party that Microsoft "embraced", but wikipedia says otherwise.

Anyway it has a nice historical list of the DX releases. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directx [wikipedia.org]

A list the lameness filter isn't allowing.....

Re:Dos (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21356273)

Hi, win2k steam user here.

If I upgrade anytime soon(which I have no good reason to), I would get XP. The only reason I would do that, is if some game I absolutely had to have was XP only and no one made a patch to make it work on 2k.

I'm playing C&C 3 on 2k, lots of other "XP ONLY!!!" games work on 2k, if someone changes 2 lines in a .dll.

Diablo 3 will force me to get something new i can tell...

Developing for Vista only? (2, Funny)

ThirdPrize (938147) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354413)

That's about as much use as developing for Linux only! Except in one years time 30% will be able to play your game.

Snooze... (1)

dyslexicbunny (940925) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354625)

So it's been just under a year and we're finding that Vista user growth is slowly increasing. Some users may refuse to upgrade out of principle, other are like me and waiting it out. I don't really find the results that surprising.

I've got XP SP2 on my gaming rig and I don't see myself upgrading to Vista anytime soon. I may do so in time when there are a couple games that I consider must haves available only on Vista. But I just don't see the point in spending money on a new OS when I don't feel there are any Vista-only must haves. Once there are a couple must haves and my PC needs upgrading, I'll probably add drive for Vista and get the games. But for now, I'm content with TF2 and the Orange Box. Hell, I haven't even had a chance to look at The Witcher yet. Plus, I can wait and find out what SP1 breaks.

Off-topic: I want to get a mic for TF2 but I don't know if I should get a headset or just a mic. Anyone have opinions?

Re:Snooze... (1)

MagusZeal (1156955) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354945)

Depends on a number of things case in point, I use a mic and run 5.1 speakers on my rig. My brother and alot of his friends though don't have speakers and instead use USB headsets for both communication and sound. Running a mic means you may pickup noise from your speakers or even feedback. Running a headset and a lack of speakers makes this a non problem.

Re:Snooze... (1)

tcolberg (998885) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354961)

If you use speakers with your desktop mic, you'll blow out the eardrums of your teammates with sound from your speakers. I use a headset with my setup, but my brother uses Sennheiser HD580s with a desktop mic. Either method is preferred because it prevents feedback.

Re:Snooze... (1)

pinchhazard (728983) | more than 6 years ago | (#21355211)

What are the pros of having a mic with no headset? You're a super cheap asshole? The cons are more plentiful, such as the fact that everyone hates when people with a mic and no headphones speak and you get terrible feedback from the game.

I would upgrade for DX10, but... (1)

Derekloffin (741455) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354719)

after having actually used Vista on my nephew's computer, my GOD I hate it. It's like MS asked all their designers, "Hey guys, what are some of the most stupid changes you could think of to make to our interface?" and then when ahead and did them. I already knew about the performance issues, and the infamous 'cancel or allow', but the interface changes are absolutely moronic in many cases. They changed many things simply because they wanted something different by the looks of it, and in most cases in a very bad way (still looking for the save as button in the new MS WORD).

Re:I would upgrade for DX10, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21355455)

Shame that Word isn't part of Vista. It's part of Microsoft Office.

I hate Vista (1)

paulius_g (808556) | more than 6 years ago | (#21354865)

Oh, this is so great. I _just_ wanted to rant about Windows Vista. Alright, let me explain this to everyone from the beginning:

Since the release of Windows Vista, I've always been hating it. I told my customers to not upgrade to Vista and to stick with XP. Whenever I heard anyone in stores talking about Vista, I immediately explained why Vista is not superior to XP. I have installed Windows Vista numerous times inside of virtual computers to try it out.

This week, I decided to do the extreme test. Install Windows Vista as a bootcamp partition on my Mac. What a disaster it was! Let me explain you the primary reasons why I hate Vista:

1) Performance!
The darn thing gobs up 600MB of RAM when it has nothing open, and even more when you open up applications. The bootup time is slow and the whole system feels very slow. This is unacceptable. This is bloated code to hell.

2) Lock-Ins
Want to disable the stupid Windows indexing search thing? You can't! Want to uninstall all the stupid apps that are bundled in with Windows? You can't do that either.

3) The look
I don't understand how Aero is supposed to be revolutionary. The interface is unbelievably distracting. The semi-transparent and blurry window borders look like a joke. Aswell, most programs will use that old-school rectangular look. It feels like I'd be running Wine.

4) Lack of innovation
What does it offer more than than XP? XP is perfectly stable, it's fast and it WORKS. The features that Microsoft is touting are simply pathetic. An integrated Anti-Virus (I have a brain and AVG for that) and some other applications in the system.

In addition to this, I have experienced many bugs since my installation of Vista. I know that drivers are to blame, but I would assume that the Bootcamp drivers are well made. Here's what I had so far:

1) Windows can't find it's partition on bootup. It complaints for two minutes and then continues on to booting properly.
2) Whenever it turns off the screen it can't turn the screen back on.
3) Random freezes. Nuff' said. I've had Vista freeze 3 times since the install. Just freeze dead. No CTRL+ALT+DELETE, just a restart will fix it.
4) The new Windows+TAB switching is buggy, it twitches and it isn't smooth.

But, I think that the slowdowns and performance problems are making this a very undesirable operating system for gamers. I know that I'll be re-installing XP. Anyone want to buy a slightly used Vista CD? :-P

It's a pathetic operating system while Leopard is kicking everyone's asses. XP will be good enough for gaming for years to come.

Re:I hate Vista (1)

Zerimar (1124785) | more than 6 years ago | (#21355581)

1) Performance! The darn thing gobs up 600MB of RAM when it has nothing open, and even more when you open up applications. The bootup time is slow and the whole system feels very slow. This is unacceptable. This is bloated code to hell.
Vista will generally use 40% of your PC's RAM regardless of how much you have in there, because it uses the RAM for an application pre-load cache. I went from 2GB to 4GB and my RAM usage stayed right around 40%.

2) Lock-Ins Want to disable the stupid Windows indexing search thing? You can't! Want to uninstall all the stupid apps that are bundled in with Windows? You can't do that either.
I thought that you could tell it not to index certain folders, but I don't know for certain. I would imagine almost all users benefit from indexed searches though...

3) The look I don't understand how Aero is supposed to be revolutionary. The interface is unbelievably distracting.
This is your opinion - I won't try to argue it.

4) Lack of innovation What does it offer more than than XP? XP is perfectly stable, it's fast and it WORKS. The features that Microsoft is touting are simply pathetic. An integrated Anti-Virus (I have a brain and AVG for that) and some other applications in the system.
Microsoft is so big and has so many customers, they can't really be innovative - they need to support too much legacy stuff. I would argue that Microsoft's stance on x64 in Vista is fairly innovative and is definitely a breath of fresh air for the desktop computing environment. Yes, I know that other OS's have had 64-bit for a long time, but only Vista will push it to be the norm.

My copy of Vista has been every bit as stable as XP was for me. There is no integrated Anti-Virus in Vista, so I'd like for you to explain how it's being touted by Microsoft. Vista IS more secure than any other copy of Windows before it thanks to it's rewritten driver model and the annoying popups (which, in my opinion, don't happen enough to be truly annoying).

It's a pathetic operating system while Leopard is kicking everyone's asses.
Uhh.... By everyone do you mean Gentoo? I don't have hard numbers, but I would guess Vista's install base is 10x as large as Leopard's...

Re:I hate Vista (1)

Some_Llama (763766) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356147)

[quote] 1) Performance!
The darn thing gobs up 600MB of RAM when it has nothing open, and even more when you open up applications.[/quote]
It's called precaching, it does this to make apps more responsive, XP had the same type of feature, Vista's implementation is more aggressive BUT it is actually a good use of memory, since you have nothing open, why does it matter if the ram is preloaded? this will only decrease the time to open any app that is cached?

[quote] The bootup time is slow and the whole system feels very slow. This is unacceptable. This is bloated code to hell.[/quote]
Hard to argue with you here.. as you aren't saying anything that can be verified one way or another.

[quote]2) Lock-Ins
Want to disable the stupid Windows indexing search thing? You can't! Want to uninstall all the stupid apps that are bundled in with Windows? You can't do that either.[/quote]

My first search for "vista uninstall indexing" found 3 ways to do this:
http://help.wugnet.com/vista/disable-Vista-indexing-ftopict43619.html [wugnet.com]

Use add/remove programs fro the rest. we have a full vista installer here at work for developer stations.. i'm not actually sure to what bundled apps you refer.. possibly bundled by the (HP/DELL/alienware?) OEM?

[quote]3) The look
I don't understand how Aero is supposed to be revolutionary. The interface is unbelievably distracting. The semi-transparent and blurry window borders look like a joke. Aswell, most programs will use that old-school rectangular look. It feels like I'd be running Wine.[/quote]

Something else you can disable?

[quote] the rest of your problems [/quote]
it doesn't seem like you have really given vista a chance.. but whatever, it's your preference obviously to use XP instead.. I don't use vista myself but if you want to get rid of your media i'd be happy to try it out...

[quote]It's a pathetic operating system while Leopard is kicking everyone's asses. [/quote] ah here it is.. you're a rabid MAC fanboi, the apple OS that came out last week is already kicking "everybody's" asses? Maybe when it comes to accidentally deleting your data, although i hear they have a fix for that?

Re:I hate Vista (1)

Some_Llama (763766) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356257)

Opps, properly formatted it looks like this:

1) Performance! The darn thing gobs up 600MB of RAM when it has nothing open, and even more when you open up applications.
It's called precaching, it does this to make apps more responsive, XP had the same type of feature, Vista's implementation is more aggressive BUT it is actually a good use of memory, since you have nothing open, why does it matter if the ram is preloaded? this will only decrease the time to open any app that is cached?

The bootup time is slow and the whole system feels very slow. This is unacceptable. This is bloated code to hell.
Hard to argue with you here.. as you aren't saying anything that can be verified one way or another.

2) Lock-Ins Want to disable the stupid Windows indexing search thing? You can't! Want to uninstall all the stupid apps that are bundled in with Windows? You can't do that either.
My first search for "vista uninstall indexing" found 3 ways to do this: http://help.wugnet.com/vista/disable-Vista-indexing-ftopict43619.html [wugnet.com] [wugnet.com] Use add/remove programs fro the rest. we have a full vista installer here at work for developer stations.. i'm not actually sure to what bundled apps you refer.. possibly bundled by the (HP/DELL/alienware?) OEM?

3) The look I don't understand how Aero is supposed to be revolutionary. The interface is unbelievably distracting. The semi-transparent and blurry window borders look like a joke. Aswell, most programs will use that old-school rectangular look. It feels like I'd be running Wine.
Something else you can disable?

the rest of your problems
it doesn't seem like you have really given vista a chance.. but whatever, it's your preference obviously to use XP instead.. I don't use vista myself but if you want to get rid of your media i'd be happy to try it out...

It's a pathetic operating system while Leopard is kicking everyone's asses.
ah here it is, the apple OS that came out last week is already kicking "everybody's" asses? I see that you aren't really trying to give your "experience" with vista but rather a dig at the evil M$ and pop in a pro apple statement while you have the chance...

Re:I hate Vista (2, Informative)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356419)

Ok, there are valid complaints about Vista, but your post doesn't really include much substance.

1) Performance!
The darn thing gobs up 600MB of RAM when it has nothing open, and even more when you open up applications. The bootup time is slow and the whole system feels very slow. This is unacceptable. This is bloated code to hell.


As other people have said, this is due to pre-caching files you're likely to need in the near future. Guess what: blank RAM is useless RAM! There's no reason for ANY OS to keep ANY byte of RAM blank when it could pre-load something in it you're statistically likely to need in the near future. If your OS leaves blank RAM blank, it's slower than it needs to be.

2) Lock-Ins
Want to disable the stupid Windows indexing search thing? You can't! Want to uninstall all the stupid apps that are bundled in with Windows? You can't do that either.


You can disable the search indexing by adding your HD to the exclusion list. In any case, this is a feature the vast majority of people actually like-- guess what, OS X does it too, so do most Linux distributions.

3) The look
I don't understand how Aero is supposed to be revolutionary. The interface is unbelievably distracting. The semi-transparent and blurry window borders look like a joke. Aswell, most programs will use that old-school rectangular look. It feels like I'd be running Wine.


1) This is all opinion.
2) Then turn it off and stop your whining. Vista includes the "Classic" Windows look, as well.

4) Lack of innovation
What does it offer more than than XP? XP is perfectly stable, it's fast and it WORKS. The features that Microsoft is touting are simply pathetic. An integrated Anti-Virus (I have a brain and AVG for that) and some other applications in the system.


Shadow Copy is the main reason I upgraded. There are a million small fixes also that are pretty cool.

In addition to this, I have experienced many bugs since my installation of Vista. I know that drivers are to blame, but I would assume that the Bootcamp drivers are well made. Here's what I had so far:

I'm not going to respond to any complaints about Vista running on hardware made by a competitor with an BIOS emulation/driver set made by a competitor. Try Vista on an actual PC, then come back and let us know how much you hate it. (Since you obviously wouldn't change your mind.)

What happened to 1280x1024? (1)

johannesg (664142) | more than 6 years ago | (#21355219)

This is a pretty common native resolution for a great many of those 17" and 19" screens that are so popular, yet it doesn't even show up in the list. Is Valves methodology flawed, or are there really only 430 people (out of potentially 8000 or so) using the native resolution on their screen?

VISTA 64bit is Better than XP 64bit (3, Informative)

gblackwo (1087063) | more than 6 years ago | (#21355301)

My gaming rig is running vista. Let me explain first that 64bit vista is leaps and bounds better than 64bit XP. So my powerhouse computer when it isn't gaming can put that 64bit goodness to use in the realm of digital audio, and CAD. On the otherhand- I have 4 gigs of ram and an O.Ced E6600. I see so many users with their new laptops that really shouldn't be running vista on their half gig of ram. etc.

Re:VISTA 64bit is Better than XP 64bit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21355587)

Yeah, well, I don't have a small penis! *blows raspberry*

Re:VISTA 64bit is Better than XP 64bit (1)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 6 years ago | (#21355721)

I have almost the same set-up (64-bit Vista, OC E6700, 4GB RAM) it's delicious. I agree that with specs like these, Vista is great. Regarding the survey, the 2GB+ RAM stat isn't very useful. I'd like to know how many are actually greater than 2GB and how many only have 2GB. Anyone with more than 2GB of RAM and 32bit XP just wasted their money - http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx [microsoft.com] . There's more to it than that page describes, but it's a start for interested parties.

64 bit is still no picnic though. Manufacturers are freaking lazy when it comes to rolling out 64 bit drivers / versions of software. I've been waiting over a year for an update to my music mixing software.

P.S. Just played the Crysis Demo with DX10 and SLI... it's amazing.

The most ridiculous take on Vista... (2, Interesting)

westlake (615356) | more than 6 years ago | (#21355467)

Vista has shown a small increase in representation, but clearly nowhere near where Microsoft would have desperately hoped. Previously 7.99% of gamers were using the latest operating system. Now it's 16.91%, with a vast 81.13% sticking with XP.

This is the most ridiculous take on Vista I have heard yet.

20% of gamers migrate to a new and more demanding OS in less than one year and this is supposed to be bad news for Vista?

Re:The most ridiculous take on Vista... (1)

juuri (7678) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356093)

20% of gamers migrate to a new and more demanding OS in less than one year and this is supposed to be bad news for Vista?

Well yes, considering PC gamers are early adopters and spend far more on software/hardware than any other part of the consumer PC segment; It's not a very high rate of conversation.

16.91%? (1)

doublefrost (1042496) | more than 6 years ago | (#21355489)

Is it 16.91% taking in the consideration that a significant % of vista users switched back to XP? People say that this is expected when MS comes out with a new OS. But I don't know, seems alot worse this time around.

Oblig Bash.Org (1)

Brothernone (928252) | more than 6 years ago | (#21355513)

http://bash.org/?813975 [bash.org]

I'm not the only one that thinks vista is terrible.

i miss steam (1)

WrongOne (872463) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356027)

I moved to ubuntu and the only thing i miss is steam games.... (sure i can run them under wine, but it just doesnt feel right).

Valve need to take notes from some more reecent games like COD4 or et:qw and get moving on releaseing a real linux client...

I used to buy games on steam, but since booting windows to the curb i havent bought a single one... (nor have i completed any of your surveys)

Linux on the desktop has been talked about for years.. the only thing i see missing from linux is gaming... and that does seem to be changing now, although slowly.

Marginalised audio (1)

sm284614 (946088) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356087)

What I think is strange is that 30-50% of epopel are using thei motherboards on-board sound to listen to stuff. You spend hundreds on a GPU, hundereds on a GPS, and have shitty sound? Sounds silly to me.

Results are not in yet! (2, Informative)

Rog7 (182880) | more than 6 years ago | (#21356285)

Why is it that Slashdot always posts the Steam Survey when it gets recycled? The survey was just restarted and has been running for less than a day, you're currently looking at about 3% of what their overall results will be.

Sure, you can form a few opinions and conjecture over a sampling of 30k, but then again, over the course of less than a full day (AFAIK it was recycled at midnight), you're not even looking at the players from prime-time yet.

More appropriate numbers will be known after a month or two.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>