If you're running an Intel CPU and a supported ATI GPU, you mean? That does nothing for me with an AMD CPU and an nVidia GPU. (Yes, I could try and run OS X in unaccelerated CPU-intensive graphics mode. No thanks).Resinence wrote:It's the same hardware.
Oh, there's also the issue of software support. I suppose I should repurchase all my Windows software for OS X (assuming it exists)? Or dual-boot? Or run Parallels or VMWare Fusion?
Funny, Company of Heroes runs quite well on my Vista 64 machine.Because Vista runs games GREAT at the moment... oh wait
DirectX 9L isn't an emulation layer, it's a reworking of DirectX 9c for WDDM.Most gamers will stick with XP until they absolutely have to upgrade to vista, unless microsoft can solve the massive performance loss in DX applications, which is doubtful. I don't know if you noticed but DX9 games under vista run in an emulated mode.
User-interface-wise I find Vista superior - and I'm not talking about the neat graphics effects of Aero Glass. The various API and kernel-level enhancements are also significant though I don't know if they'll be a compelling upgrade for the average joe. However, most people will migrate to Vista anyways when they get a new computer.There really is no reason for anyone to upgrade at the moment, normal users only use the internet and email and don't care about flashy interfaces.
And normal users care more than just using the Internet these days.
I think they will, especially as Microsoft will not release DX10 for earlier operating systems.Gamers, the ones who care about the interface... won't upgrade because of performance loss and incompatibility.
You will, of course, provide data to defend your assertion?Window's is well supported trash, you can make shit transparent but it's still shit, WINE under linux runs DX9 games better than vista.
) , and the windows console is only 80 characters wide (And I hear that limitation also affects Monad).