Will PA Run on Windows XP?

With all those "major improvements" I'm still have less than 70% of Windows drivers performance. With Nvidia GPU I'm have performance parity between Windows and Linux with much better quality of proprietary drivers.

PS: Also non-advanced user basically can't use open source drivers, so I can't recommend Linux to any owner of AMD hardware. For games it's just will work like a crap.

Yeah I can see the problem- although in general the linux catalyst drivers always used to work. Now I gather that PA isn't playing nicely with them but I'm not sure that is entirely down to the AMD driver team- from what I recall Uber are focusing on Nvidia cards for development. If PA doesn't support Catalyst under Linux then I think Uber need to be looking to address that their end because the catalyst drivers do work fine in other games. From what I've seen PA doesn't do anything that exotic with respect to graphics.

I do not talking about PA here. Mostly every game have less than 80% of Windows performance and situation with open source drivers is worse, it's 50-60% of performance. Those % is okay because I'm have damn good GPU, but I just can't recommend Linux to AMD users because on their low-end or mobile graphics card they won't get any reasonable performance.

Though PA working just fine with open source drivers. There two visual issues, but they're pretty small and both related to Mesa/R600g bugs.

All problems PA have with Catalyst are only related to driver bugs.

Alright third time lucky replying to this.

Sorry for bringing this up 2 pages late but it irked me.

Firstly, this is not true. I know of people who have played at 120fps and they claim (Linus claims this as well) that they can't go back to 60fps. Most likely in jest, but still they do they it's a big difference.

Secondly, is it not rather hypocritical that you say they have less customisation and yet when it offers you an option to CUSTOMISE, you say that it is a nightmare?

Just my 2 cents.

edit: damn i didnt realise that this was from June.

my bad.

I made the difficult decision to upgrade from XP to Windows 7 as soon as it was announced that PA would not be supporting Win XP.

Now that the choice has been made I don't regret going to 7 and would strongly recommend it to anyone who is still using XP.

Hm. Well, I'd say something, but I believe this page speaks more truth than I can.
http://www.cameratechnica.com/2011/11/21/what-is-the-highest-frame-rate-the-human-eye-can-perceive/

It's a complex topic, and I know the eye itself can see faster, but unless you have a stupidly advanced monitor designed for extreme fluidity (do they even exist?), it won't matter because the monitor itself will not play more than a certain limit of FPS. If your monitor has a maximum FPS, it will not visually give you any more than that maximum, though motion blur on newer games can fool your eyes into thinking it's a faster FPS when it's not. I don't claim to know everything, though I do know you will not see any difference in pure fps alone between 60fps and 120fps on a monitor that only supports a maximum of 60fps in it's respective Hertz. The monitor won't actually go faster.

That's not customization. There's a difference between turning something on and off, having four settings, and completely fine-tuning everything there is. I wasn't trying to use that as an example, but as an add-on to the statement 7 not being as bad as Vista.

The nightmare I was speaking of was the computer asking me twice or three-fold when I opened EVERY single program, every time something changed a file or folder, every little everything that ever happened ever. Every game I opened, every time I opened Firefox, Media Player classic, changed a mouse setting, ticked a box in my volume settings.. THAT is a nightmare. I realize my statement wasn't stated in the most understandable English, but since I'm not sure how you connected the customization statement to the unneeded over-protection statement, I think explaining further is a fair tradeoff.

The customization I speak of is the background images to your folders, the ability to change your entire theme, the images to the official icons, background, the actual login screen background, what the button labels say for Shut Down, Restart, and Sleep, every sound in existence in the OS, start menu design, start BAR design, the literal design of your explorer down to the size of the scroll at the right, the menus at the top, the quick display thing on the left and SO much more.

Keep in mind, that's all just for XP. Windows 98 SE had all of that plus more. The fact that you HAD to pull the program to change the background of your folders from win98 to use it in XP was just the start of things that XP did not have in comparison to 98 for customization. I have it here on my HD but doubt it will work on 7.

Here's your change, sir. 4 cents with change.
(In b4 "this thread should die, goaway bgr and let it die")

Of course you won't see a difference in 60-120fps on a 60hz monitor. You need a 120hz monitor for 120fps.

But some people can definitely tell.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?annot...&feature=iv&src_vid=yWEpIwNDeCA&v=a2IF9ZPwgDM

Linus used a blind test with some guy and he couldn't tell the difference (albeit the test was weird and gave him no context what so ever, how can he tell its 120hz if he doesnt know what it feels like?).

But in that video he himself does the test and gets ALL of them right.

And that's exactly what you were trying to argue against from my perspective considering the context of my post to me. It's exactly what I said in my original post that you quoted. You can't tell the difference. Pretty sure back then I didn't even know the existence of 120Hz monitors and honestly when things look visually smooth at 60fps, then you're not going to get TOO much of a better smooth than that. It'll look better, but if the average gamer can't tell the difference, it's pretty obvious it's a metaphorical nonlinear line. An average gamer could easily tell you the difference between 30fps and 60fps. I know I could. Even if you do increase the frames from 60 to 120, it won't be as dramatically different as going from 30 to 60 is. It'll be even less noticeable when we upgrade from 120 to 240. (assuming that's next, anyway)

I don't doubt that there's a difference between 60Hz and 120Hz, but that video could be staged just like any other video on the internet. Just taking it as-is means nothing. He could have known beforehand or been given hand-signs or whatnot. It doesn't really matter to me, and no disrespect to whomever Linus and NCIX are, but I'm not going to take a video into consideration that really just can't be proven just by saying "believe me because we totally didn't stage anything off camera that you didn't see."

This thread still happening... The argument is WAY off topic now.

This topic is about XP support, NOT what FPS works better or not.

Also, to those that act like XP is so great, Windows 8 sucks, yada yada... I just have a quick question, have you even used them? Many people I know that LOVE Xp and won't change, have actually never used Vista, 7, 8, Linux, or Mac. So, I just wonder WHAT they compare it to. Same with people that hate Windows 8, not a single person I met has actually USED windows 8, they just say it sucks from videos and images and other's opinions.

I know even I'm off topic. But I ask that you never speak ill of an operating system you do not use.

dw the thread was actually kinda dead, and I feel ya bro, being a long time linux-lover; only I in my friend's circle was sensible to the charms of windows 8. The crazy thing is the only things that make windows 8 extremely likable are the all the things windows had to envy from linux for all these years and fiiiinally fiiiinally kinda got even on. not saying we finally beat it into the mold of something that is stable and logical but it got that much closer. In the end once most useful programs and popular games are ported over to linux there's no reason in the world to continue sticking around with windows.

I'm progressively making the switch back to linux.

The under-the-hood changes to Windows 8 are great. It's the UI that holds it back. The Metro/modern UI by itself is quite nice, but it's the integration between that and the desktop mode that makes it clunky to use as a desktop OS.

Some examples of where the UI fails:

• Duplication of applications (There's a metro and desktop picture viewer), but inconsistantly so (not everything has a duplicate).
• Default applications are not all Desktop or Metro, they are a mix. So when opening a file in desktop windows Explorer, it might suddenly switch to a metro app, which is jarring.
  
• Partially duplicate control panel/settings options. Some are only available in one or the other.
  
• I have been around computers for 20+ years. I had to google how to shut down the computer when I first installed windows 8. That is a MASSIVE fail. Further to this, why isn't Log Off in the same location as Shut Down/Restart?
• Reliance on gestures with no corresponding visual cue (eg. to close a metro app, swipe down).
• Over-reliance on touch - using a mouse feels clunky.

As for the holy war between Windows/Mac/Linux, the "truth" about Windows is that it has been stable for quite some time. Other than due to hardware failure, I haven't seen Windows crash by itself in a very long time (and I work as an IT admin).

Windows won't go for a very long time, especially as either Mac nor Linux comes close to Windows for Enterprise control and management. Linux is good for stand-alone servers, but you can't beat Active Directory when managing a network.

I've used some of the other OSes, but I can't claim to be an expert. I have a mac at work, and usually it works fine, but there are certain things about it that pisses me off. For instance, the search feature doesn't display the dir location of the files it finds. When I have 8 different asdf.sty scattered all over the harddrive... it's a huge pain to find the one I need. The linux boxes on the floor below are slow and clunky, but that might be hardware related. That same computer lab has a computer with win7. The start menu/control panel are a huge pain to navigate. I haven't tried win8 yet, but I've heard _unanimously_ negative things about it.

I've only heard negative things about windows 8 from people that haven't put it to any use. It's not perfect, but it's no worse than windows 7 when it comes to issues with UI. Most of the UI of windows 7 that I need/use is still the same as windows 8. It's pushing "Apps" too hard, but that's really about the only part that actually slows down and clunks the new UI.

The fact that the desktop in 8.1 is actually the base that the start menu and apps actuaally run on top of now fixes most of the issues people had. I've YET to find a person that has actually used it and actually disliked it. Most people use it for about a day at the most, get frustrated cause they don't actually try to learn hotkey based navigation or how the UI works. They don't like change, THAT'S FINE, but they shouldn't consider it bad UI till they've learned it.

It's alot faster for me to navigate my stuff using the new UI.

I've used Windows 7 and 8, and 8 is a big step backwards in UI until they properly integrate the metro/modern UI (don't get me wrong, I can see the potential). At the moment, it's slapped on top and then they've tried to merge to two, but have only done so part way. 8.1 fixed a few problems, and you can "learn it", but it doesn't mean it's better (see my previous post).

You see the problem there? I have colleagues at work who are confused by Windows XP. They do try and learn how to use it, but they didn't grow up using computers and so they aren't very computer literate.

And then there's office 2007 onwards. It's made word processing really inconvenient because although it may not require more clicks to do stuff, stuff is hidden from your immediate vision.

Hot key based navigation is all well and good, but sometimes it really does help to have another, fast and intuitive way to get into the system. What happens if your keyboard breaks?

It's actually the opposite: it may take 1 click more (first click to go to the ribbon you want), but everything is there in one place, grouped into logical tabs - you no longer need to wonder about whether a function can only be found in the menus, or only in a toolbar, and then go hunt for it in a sea of 16x16 pixel icons with no captions. If you really want to also, you can move the quick access toolbar below the ribbon and have a row of those lovely 16x16 icons

Something well worth a look at is a talk that was done by Microsoft regarding the development of the ribbon UI, how it came about and why: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/jensenh/archive/2008/03/12/the-story-of-the-ribbon.aspx

My mum makes a living writing and using word processors all the time, so this is her complaint, not mine.

The issue that although the tabs are logical, it depends on the type of person you are.
Think about lego.

Are the type of person who upends your box of lego onto the floor, or are you the type of person who keeps similar bricks in different boxes?

Because I am the first type. And then go by shape recognition. I made the toolbars into a giant toolbar of death (and then generally spaced them around the screen)

The issue is you can't see into every single box simultaneously. So if I forget where on of ribbon a particular command is, you have to search through 7 different tabs, and then look for the icon. Whereas previously, you just had to look for the icon.

Granted, the icons are in logical places... which makes it even more annoying when the icon isn't in the place you think it should be.

I haven't tried 8.1 yet, but I find 8 to be a massive upgrade to XP in most ways (although the shut-down procedures are... odd..., the metro issues are solved by changing defaults)

They finally got rid of the start button!

...

And then they brought it back in its old unchangeable form in 8.1...

Anyway, task manager improvements are another cool thing in windows 8.


Family safety is the most broken thing I have ever seen...

But yeah, after you get the defaults fixed and get used to the ludicrous shut down and log off paths, you'll find that it's superior to XP in most ways that you'd think of.

Nope start button in windows 8.1 brings up the start screen. The start menu is gone. And to be honest, a obvious, 1 click start button is pretty necessary, rather than opening the charms bar.

I was talking about the button itself, not the menu.

Have you used windows 8? Start corner(8)/button(8.1) is 1-click.