LoL.. my brother bought the *ehem* version and there is a workaround to let Halo 2 played on WinXP.


Currently my rig can play Lost Planet at high settings. I wonder how would it be if I play it on Vista. Now don't dare to try yet since last time I try with my old rig (AMD Athlon 3000+, GeForce 6800GS, 1GB RAM) and from High Settings in XP.. I have to tone down the settings for my Tiberium Wars to Medium settings only

I think I will have to tone down my Lost Planet settings to Medium too if I change to Vista.. not to mention using the more hardware-hungry Dx10 yet. Even 8800GTS is not enough


Basically running a Dx10 card on Windows Vista... eye candy but with lots of hardware restraints...

wonder how those with 8600GT will play Crysis later...

This post has been edited by Phoenixwunin: Aug 1 2007, 07:53 PM

Makes things simpler abit.

DX9 card on WinXP = DX9 features
DX9 card on Vista = DX9 features
DX10 card on WinXP = DX9 features
DX10 card on Vista = DX10 features

they will never be DX10 for XP. Due to GC driver's completely different architecture in Vista. But as many said, even Vista has been launched for more than 6 months, both ATI and Nvidia are still not able to produce a bug-free driver for Vista platform, for both dx9 or dx10 cards. So far, playing dx9 games on Vista is still sucker than playing in XP.

its really recommended those who don;t own dx10 card yet to stay in XP for a little while.

eh guys....has anyone tried playing Price Of Persia: The Two Thrones on Vista?

how is it?? i mean, resource hog or wat??? can my rig (see sig) be able to handle it at high settings and highh reso (1680*1050) ah?

also does the starforce protection on POP mess around with Vista?

This post has been edited by mADmAN: Aug 1 2007, 08:00 PM

OpenGL DX10 version should be able to play latest openGL games on XP though. Maybe Quake5 or Pray2.

Hmm... New here, wanna ask here, 8500 w/ DX10 vs 7600, which one will you guys go for?

7600GT !!
i dont thinks low end dx10 gc will outperform 76 ! just my opinion

true enuf. In my opinion.. if the reason of getting a new gc is for the purpose of Dx10.. better get at least 8800GTS.

Gets 8500GT DDR3 then oc. It will outperfomed 7600GT in many latest games especially that using a lot of shader processing.

IMHO for that price id rather top up abit more and get the Colorful 8600GT OC Edition from shawty from the bulk order section. and thats exactly what i did

i was initially considering the 8500GE....but then saw shawtys price...i find it a better bang for the buck honestly and went for that.

Not true though..Not everyone can afford an over 1k GC though..

From various thread last time, even some people are saying 8800 is not capable of handling future DX10 games..

LOL..Thats for sure. 8600 is always going to be better than the 8500 and with it being OCed, thats an additional plus point

How does this card perform on current games? Can you set the settings to maximum? What resolution?

But your sig shows a 8800GTS wor....

AFAIK, he already owns the BFG 8800GTS OC and is getting another 8600GT OC..

like akachester said...i already own a BFG 8800GTS 320MB OC2 as in my sig.

the 8600 is something i ordered for my other PC...which is a HTPC+torrent rig.

dunno the performance though...havent received it yet. i wont be gaming on the HTPC until i get a better LCD TV. right now 21" CRT only

Torrent rig need 8600GT OC? Better spend for 500GB hdd.

LCD stills a LCD.. Not as powerful as CRT..
I've tried on a 19" CRT Flat(Samsung Synmaster) and a 19" LCD(Samsung 931c) to play Lost Planet..
I turn the graphic/resolution details to all MAX, and found that when you facing some in-game scene that has mass shaking+blur effect.. CRT Flat no color problem, but i found that LCD will may have a bit color changed, which mean u'll saw some purple color in your shaking in-game scene..

This post has been edited by efisherman: Aug 2 2007, 02:01 PM

Though LCDs lose in terms of (absolute) colour reproduction, and perhaps ghosting to a certain degree, you can't deny the widescreen aspect and how it's better suited for gaming. Higher end widescreen LCDs > CRTs generally, except maybe for professional photo work.

It is a fact that LCD will lose to CRT in many, if not most, aspects. However, there are some advantages of LCD to CRT in terms of space, weight, radiation, etc that for many people, these advantages usually outweighs the advantages of having a CRT. Due to these factors, many users are gradually migrating to LCDs..... (pls note, the phase "many users". I'm sure some people will swear by the advantages of CRTs!!!)

This post has been edited by kmarc: Aug 2 2007, 03:12 PM

u do realize im talking about TVs right?? not monitors? and the rig's main purpose is as HTPC+torrent. gaming is just a bonus kinda thing...imagine gaming on a 42" screen so im not too concerned with games on that rig. just wanted something to be able to support current (n hopefully future) games for some time more.

@§layerXT
thought about it...but since that rig doesnt have a GC and needs one...so might as well la. also that rig will have a 160+320gig...so enough laaaaaaaaaa..

besides...i always either burn or delete the files i download. i just need a big space so that i can store them til i get around to burning/ deleting them...which i dont do often

yes, i do agree that the advantages of LCD may be more than the CRT. It juz when i saw tat issue comes out, i feel a bit unsatisfy..