Nvidia drivers

[D. Eth]

http://www.nvidia.com/object/winvista_x86_178.13_whql.html

New 32-bit drivers.
My gaming performance index went from a 4.9 to a 5.5
Vista just getting better and better.
Yeah, baby !

 

[Jon]

http://www.nvidia.com/object/winvista_x86_178.13_whql.html

New 32-bit drivers.
My gaming performance index went from a 4.9 to a 5.5
Vista just getting better and better.
Yeah, baby !

Good news of course, but I wish they'd add the GeForce 5-series to that list
of products supported. Unlikely to happen, but how much more effort would it
really involve to add a little more backward compatibility?

 

[D. Eth]

Good news of course, but I wish they'd add the GeForce 5-series to that
list of products supported. Unlikely to happen, but how much more effort
would it really involve to add a little more backward compatibility?

About as likely as 2 series support.
One of my PC's still has a Geforce2 400....runs with a PIII...pretty much a
dinosaur.

 

[Alias]

http://www.nvidia.com/object/winvista_x86_178.13_whql.html

New 32-bit drivers.
My gaming performance index went from a 4.9 to a 5.5
Vista [is] just getting better and better.
Yeah, baby !

Yep, Vista is a toy operating system design for gaming. In that regard,
it beats Ubuntu hands down. In fact, I plan to install Vista so I can
take advantage of the DX10 for gaming. But for real work with no viruses
or malware, rebooting, updating to death, BSODs etc., Ubuntu's the wise
choice.

Alias

 

[D. Eth]

http://www.nvidia.com/object/winvista_x86_178.13_whql.html

New 32-bit drivers.
My gaming performance index went from a 4.9 to a 5.5
Vista [is] just getting better and better.
Yeah, baby !

Yep, Vista is a toy operating system design for gaming. In that regard, it
beats Ubuntu hands down. In fact, I plan to install Vista so I can take
advantage of the DX10 for gaming. But for real work with no viruses or
malware, rebooting, updating to death, BSODs etc., Ubuntu's the wise
choice.

Alias

ubuntu updates every other day !
sometimes one days updates are retractions of previous updates !
LOL... !
It's friggen hilarious.

 

[Alias]

http://www.nvidia.com/object/winvista_x86_178.13_whql.html

New 32-bit drivers.
My gaming performance index went from a 4.9 to a 5.5
Vista [is] just getting better and better.
Yeah, baby !

Yep, Vista is a toy operating system design for gaming. In that
regard, it beats Ubuntu hands down. In fact, I plan to install Vista
so I can take advantage of the DX10 for gaming. But for real work with
no viruses or malware, rebooting, updating to death, BSODs etc.,
Ubuntu's the wise choice.

Alias

ubuntu updates every other day !

A lie.

sometimes one days updates are retractions of previous updates !

So? What have you got against making something better?

LOL... !
It's friggen hilarious.

What's pathetic is to have to go round the Net looking for updates.
Ubuntu has them all in one place and requires no looking around. Of
course, you didn't address the fact that Windows is a top operating
system made for playing games.

Alias

 

[D. Eth]

D. Eth wrote:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/winvista_x86_178.13_whql.html

New 32-bit drivers.
My gaming performance index went from a 4.9 to a 5.5
Vista [is] just getting better and better.
Yeah, baby !


Yep, Vista is a toy operating system design for gaming. In that regard,
it beats Ubuntu hands down. In fact, I plan to install Vista so I can
take advantage of the DX10 for gaming. But for real work with no viruses
or malware, rebooting, updating to death, BSODs etc., Ubuntu's the wise
choice.

Alias

ubuntu updates every other day !

A lie.

sometimes one days updates are retractions of previous updates !

So? What have you got against making something better?

LOL... !
It's friggen hilarious.

What's pathetic is to have to go round the Net looking for updates. Ubuntu
has them all in one place and requires no looking around. Of course, you
didn't address the fact that Windows is a top operating system made for
playing games.

Alias

Well, playing games is just another way of saying "running third party apps"
You know...software made by outside vendors.
Not many make it for linux.
Unless you call 24,000 lib files apps.

 

[Nogginsaked]

How long has Vista been out and the video driver performance is just
catching up to XP drivers?
Yeah, baby . . .

 

[D. Eth]

How long has Vista been out and the video driver performance is just
catching up to XP drivers?
Yeah, baby . . .

Way its always been.
Perhaps you forget XP in the beginning ?
It was aweful ... games needed 8 patches to run right....but boy, did they
run then!
Vista is the same.
My PS3 has had probably nine updates....but COD4 kicks romper room !
Get a clue.

 

[Charles W Davis]

http://www.nvidia.com/object/winvista_x86_178.13_whql.html

New 32-bit drivers.
My gaming performance index went from a 4.9 to a 5.5
Vista [is] just getting better and better.
Yeah, baby !

Yep, Vista is a toy operating system design for gaming. In that regard, it
beats Ubuntu hands down. In fact, I plan to install Vista so I can take
advantage of the DX10 for gaming. But for real work with no viruses or
malware, rebooting, updating to death, BSODs etc., Ubuntu's the wise
choice.

Alias

Strange that the Ubuntu forum entries don't reflect that premise.

 

[+Bob+]

How long has Vista been out and the video driver performance is just
catching up to XP drivers?
Yeah, baby . . .

Exactly. Here's how to increase that Vista performance two-fold:

1. Format C:
2. Install XP

 

[Frank]

+Bob+ wrote:

Exactly. Here's how to increase that Vista performance two-fold:

1. Format C:
2. Install XP
-------------------------------------------
Wrong!
1) Format C: Install Vista.
2) Know what-the-fukk you're doing.

But in your case, #2 is impossible so sticking with XP is best.

 

[+Bob+]

+Bob+ wrote:

Exactly. Here's how to increase that Vista performance two-fold:

1. Format C:
2. Install XP
-------------------------------------------
Wrong!
1) Format C: Install Vista.
2) Know what-the-fukk you're doing.

But in your case, #2 is impossible so sticking with XP is best.

Q. Why does MS have hardware requirements set significantly higher for
Vista and why does everyone in the know recommend hardware twice as
powerful to comfortably run it?

A. Because Vista's performance is much worse than XP

 

[Paul Montgumdrop]

Q. Why does MS have hardware requirements set significantly higher for
Vista and why does everyone in the know recommend hardware twice as
powerful to comfortably run it?

A. Because Vista's performance is much worse than XP

Vista is not XP stupid. When are you going to figure that one out?