Ok so they're having issues with Nvidia drivers. WHAT ABOUT ATI DRIVERS? Does this game work with the 2900XT in DX10 or not?

"We won't know for sure until we get the game for ourselves but this might dampen the spirits of the DX10 fanboys."

So do you just enjoy sounding unprofessional by putting your own little meaningless opinion in things? Or is it a requirement of the job now?

"Until we get it on Vista running on multi-threaded drivers we don't want to show any more, because we are getting performance impact on Vista. We don't want to make Vista look bad either, because it's not Vista's fault - it's the driver right now."

Exactly.

"So do you just enjoy sounding unprofessional by putting your own little meaningless opinion in things? Or is it a requirement of the job now?"

What is this guy supposed to be, an RSS feed? He's got an opinion, and he stated it, you know, like he's WRITING something and not regurging a press release or something. Geez, man, cut the journalist some slack for actually doing his job and not cutting and pasting...

"Ok so they're having issues with Nvidia drivers. WHAT ABOUT ATI DRIVERS? Does this game work with the 2900XT in DX10 or not?"

ATI's driver is likely not a problem. ATI's design is based off a massively threaded architecture and has been since the x1800 series. Hence them not mentioning it.

from my experience fanboys change "ships" pretty fast.

One day it's the xbox360 the other it's the ps3 and in yet another day its the PC

The marketing machine has a lot to do with the mentality of many gamers out there.
People do follow the hype and that's why companies like Microsoft and Sony invest so much in marketing.

But let's face it. its not one factor that makes something stand out.
Its a combination ...

I'm planning on buying a new "platform" so to speak.
I've looked and keep looking into the ps3 the xbox360 and even the PC.

And this is what I think so far.
The xbox 360 is pretty much in the middle of its life cycle. even a low end pc with a price tag equivalent to the xbox360 can deliever better graphics in higher resolutions and with more game options (mods and so on)

The PS3 has some interesting things. The BD player.some nice visuals. a soon to be released TV tunner that will allow to make a true media center. If that works it may suit many people. but it is getting there way to late. it's best graphics are no longer something as jaw-dropping as a few years ago

Now what about the PC?
If you head to http://www.cyberpowerpc.com/system/sp3.asp?v=d
you can see a $600 PC that has a geforce 8 one of the coupled with one of the top Core 2 duo processors
Geforce 9 is just around the corner.
In the next months new processors are coming out.
Games like Bioshock, Oblivion and so on do look better on a PC then on consoles.
Plus added customization , cheaper game prices, good quality releases and so on, make me think the PC is the best bet of investement.
But defenatly DX10 is not going to be an advantage for someone with a Geforce 8.
But at the same time having Vista, a good PC is better than buying an Xbox 360 or PS3 today.
It delievers more, for a good price. and makes u more prepared for DX10.
Because once Geforce 9 and the new ATI cards come out and the websites start posting benchmarks of DX10 titles running at high fps the PS3 and x360 will loose even more of its appeal...
What i mean is ....if i was going to invest on a new game system TODAY, i wouldn't invest on a xbox360 or a PS3. Simply because in a few months time i would be sorry not to have invested in a PC, thus not being able to put a new video card.

Vista is at fault for decreasing performance across the board for most games by @ least 5fps. Why can M$ just release a GOOD operating system once in a while rather than taking a year to polish a half assed version?

Well both ati and nvidia drivers have issues. they just need some time to get there DX10 up to date. so far ati is ahead, but not by much, they still have there bugs to work out.

"So do you just enjoy sounding unprofessional by putting your own little meaningless opinion in things? Or is it a requirement of the job now?"

You're not reading the Wall Street Journal. This doesn't need to be professional. Get over yourself. The last thing we need is to have articles like this sound like some kind of a technical breakdown written by an economics professor.

Oh and ATI is dead, sorry chief. Amd is out of money to do anything worthwhile. (thats my opinion, oh noes don't hang me from a tree).

The article really should have mentioned ATI/AMD as a counterpoint. They do still control 40% of the GPU enthusiast market, after all. All the belly-aching about NVidia drivers has me scratching my head, as I run ATI cards in my Vista systems at home. No performance or compatibility problems here.

WRONG!!! MICROSOFT IS INDEED TO BLAME for this problem despite what the President of Crytek states, AND IT IS FOR THIS ONE REASON ALONE:

MICROSOFT DOESN"T FOLLOW THE OPEN SOURCE MODEL. IF NVIDIA AND OTHERS (WHO I WORK FOR, AHEM) COULD SEE THE CODE BASE, THEN WE WOULD KNOW WHAT THE HELL TO LOOK FOR, WHAT TO OPTIMIZE and WHAT TO RECODE, PERIOD.

REMEMBER, WE HAVE TO ASSUME MS's STUFF IS WORKING CORRECTLY.... AND WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU ASSUME.

WAIT FOR NVIDIA TO INFORM MS OF THEIR BUGS, THEN WAIT FOR MS TO RECODE, THEN WAIT FOR PATCH, LET PROCESS OCCUR 2 OR 3 TIMES, THEN GET IT.

Someone made a point that a PC of equivalent price tag can produce graphics on par with a 360, and other than the Blue Ray Player, power close to a PS3.

Its a good point to make that a PC is an overrall better platform for just about anything than a game console. For one, it can be upgraded much easier: as Toms recently did, you can take a two year old PC and make it pretty much on par with modern equipment for a decent price any day. And it does far many more things than a game system.

But I have to say that while I can see the future of gaming without game consoles, I cannot agree with everything in JFPs post. For one, nothing has really tapped out the power of a PS3 yet. The cell broadband engine is so powerful that not even Intel's servers are using it yet: someone from Folding@home said that 10,000 PS3s are the equivalent of several hundred thousand PCs in terms of processing capability in an article I read once. Thats because the Cell Broadband engine is basically an 8 core processor.

Also, nothing has really fully taken advantage of the Blue Ray Disc yet. Or the HDMI 1.3 port on the PS3 (you cannot get a PC with HDMI 1.3 yet!).

The XBox 360's tri-core processor is also something no one has really taken full advantage of yet: nothing has slowed it down. And I have played BioShock on both a PC and a 360 now. It looked better on the 360 in my opinion. Both systems were running 1366x768 widescreen. The difference? My PC is currently running a Radeon X1650 XT graphics card, and an Intel E4300 at 2.4 gigahertz. The processor may be equal in power to the Xeon core of the 360, but the 360 uses a graphics card far superior to that X1650.

Really, only An HD2600, its equivalent or up can out-pace a 360 in terms of graphic goodness. At higher resolutions? Sure, but 1900x1200 monitors are as expensive as a 360 in some cases, and everyone is trying to get an HDTV at one point or another anyway! Maybe even to use it as a computer monitor....

Which is why eventually you will see shooters, RPGs and such no longer on consoles, because games will demand graphics that consoles will not be able to reproduce year after year. But so long as a Blue Ray Player is as expensive as a PS3, the PS3 is relevant.

Whats more, game systems provide superior entertainment centers for 'most' people. Tech savvy users can build an HTPC that spanks a game console anyday, but an Xbox 360 is an easier to use home theater centerpiece, as is a PS3, than a computer. The use of those systems is so akin to plugging in a DVD player to the TV that most people just get it, and surfing the internet is easier still: your options are either Xbox Live or the PS3... whatever the hell that is. And you are plugged right into entertainment with those, where as the PC plugs you into everything.

Also, developers have to be happier making games for consoles than computers. Are there driver problems or compatibility issues with an Xbox 360 or PS3? Nope, all the hardware is the same between every 360 or PS3. But with computers, there are different processors, different drivers, different graphics cards, blah blah. You can bet that Crytek Studios is not loosing sleep over the though of putting this game to the 360 or PS3.

I do agree that the PC will eventually take over the living room, and that it will replace the Playstation or Xbox for die hard gamers. But no time soon. That change will be slower, and as yet there is not a easy to use hub that makes a HTPC. Microsoft can aspouse Media Center all it wants: its buggy, has compatibility issues and does not work with all audio output devices. When I set my PC to my TV, I had to adjust Media Centers audio settings, the audio settings under control panel, AND the audio settings in Realteks software just to get 5.1 channel analog output. Does a 360 have that problem? Nope. A PS3? Just hook the HDMI chord into the slot on your surround receiver and you are done.

@ John
"Vista is at fault for decreasing performance across the board for most games by @ least 5fps"

Well, do you guys remember when XP first came out, or when Windows 95 came out? Games didn't run well on them at first. 95 didn't run DOS games very well, so they came out with Windows Accelerators (graphics cards that could handle GUI's), and then XP didn't run win98 games as fast when it shipped. It's a different story now, since XP has been out in the wild for years. The 2900 and the 8800 from AMD and Nvidia are only the first step into gaming. You can't expect much when you guys are running legacy hardware still. 2c

I have no issues with performance under Vista 32bit and Nvidia 8800GTS. Loosing 5fps with a new OS is nothing to cry about but hearld that they kept most games running on a mostly new platform. What MS does with OS's is beyond amazing. To run across so many platforms with so many different peripherals and to do it most of the time without fuss, so if you have problems with Vista its more then likely not MS's fault but older hardware. Drivers have been an issue from the start because MS got very strict about what the driver has access to, trying to tighten security more. Vista is every bit the revolution that it was promised to be. Most drivers are written in machine code for speed so it does take time to optimitze and debug.

Blessman: You've bought probably absolutely different "Vista" product then I was trying to use. Absolutely pathetic backward compatibility on games, out-of-the box apps crash quite often, lack of drivers for HW which has been supported in XP. Bizarre "security" measures. Oh my. I have reformatted drive and went back to XP happily. Vista is "ME" version of XP. Unstable DX10 drivers & total lack of DX10 games makes the upgrade even less worthwhile...

Wow Penguin the all caps post just screams 12 year old on a tantrum. You can whine about Microsoft's code not being open source all you want. God forbid they want to sell a product and make money instead of just giving it away.

And I just finished helping a friend build a monster gaming system. Q6600, 4GB RAM, 2 x 8800GTS 640MB in SLI, 3 x 500GB hard drives, 150GB Raptor. Running 64-bit Vista. Vista so far is rock solid.

And you can't build a PC for $350 that can beat a 360 in games. A motherboard, processor, RAM, and graphics card alone will run you about $330. Then you need a case, power supply, DVD drive, and Windows.
Now a gaming PC for the same price as a PS3 ($600), yes you can do that and it'll beat the PS3 and the 360. But not $350.

John,

You cannot put the blame with Vista on Microsoft, it has a lot more security than XP did and in the decision to do this it does reduce performance a bit. 5FPS is hardly a problem issue unless you are only getting 25FPS then I would not be happy.

Vista is what it is, and to be honest its stable, or so far has been for me.

Remember everyone complained about XP being slower than 98SE with games too, eventually though you liked the dependability of the operating system to care.

If you remember back in the day with Nvidia when they were first producing a competing card to 3DFX every new driver update added better performance. Expect to always see this from now on, less mature drivers can be buggy, and long term tested drivers are always better in the end.

No matter what they will iron it out. You can bet on it.

-Don

Nvidia hasn't been the best with drivers. DX10 supports nice features but its complicated still. ATI drivers are rock solid work grate and has the fastest tri-quad gpu set up. Nvidia still has the single and duel fastest. But Nvidia wont get the top spot if they don't bet there software together...
Amazing hardware but crappy software makes the hardware a fine tuned unusable piece of metal and plastic.

It was my understanding that M$ was going to release DX 10 for XP a year after Vista came out.

I think that MS should release DX 10 for XP then they would have a stable OS to modify the code of DX 10 in and it would benefitt devs to fine tune drivers in XP because they would know the XP code so well, cause everybody knows that Vista was going to be buggy when it came out, and still is.

I wont touch Vista 64bit untill SP1 comes out, and maybe not even then.

"Vista is "ME" version of XP."

=/

I run Vista 64-bit with an 8800GTS and I regularly play older games. I also play the newest games on the market with outstanding performance. I couldnt even keep ME from crashing when installing a network device. ME was the very definition of "unstable". I find that same netphobia about Vista all over and I have to say it really isnt true. Vista is not ME in any way, shape, or form. Im no fanboy either way. I just use the OS and dont hate it at all.

Vista certainly has some annoying stock settings. (easily solved btw) but its close to as stable as XP in my experience. I dont think it has as far to come as XP did when it was first released.

Any reasonable person would assume it takes time for a new OS, API, hardware, and drivers to get along perfectly. Early adopters certainly expect these issues. I still cant get a decent driver for Call of Duty 2 on 32-bit XP for my 8800GTS and DX9. That doesnt make front page news though.