And a good example of 'lets make a bullish assumption of a user just so I can get a flame out on their ass and feed my ego'.

I did read the thread, and you'd do well to re-read it and double check on yourself. Again I'll say, DX10 is a joke, and DX11 is going to have alot to show for itself that it isn't just going to be another forcing of (inevitably pointless) hardware upgrading for users. As for my comment on the underlying technology essentially being the same as Vista, I'm referring to the WinMin technology which was supposedly at one point going to be the basis for the new Windows OS. It looks like that has gone out of the window for the time being, nothing more has been said on that for a long time now.

My bitterness is coming from the fact I recently upgraded my machine to 4GB of Ram, and a 9800GT and guess what, games are still running worse in Vista with the highest ammount of memory you can get (for 32 bit) and DX10 hardware, than in XP under DX9 with considerably less memory.

Like I said - there's certainly a good chance Windows 7 will prove the same for PC gamers - Worthless.

Yea. Guys just because it looks the same doesnt mean its the same OS.
"It looks the same as Vista" That doesnt mean its going to be the same smart asses.

OT:Its looking good. The taskbar looks alot more useful and it still look pretty. If you dont like the way it looks people then learn how to skin honestly.

Well , if half of the things mentioned in the two articles posted by JaggedSac become true(and work decently) i'm moving to W7.

Can you point the similarities?

Here, i'll help you:

OH NOES! THEY LOOK TEH SAEM!

Hmmm I don't like window transparency that much... It's useless and take up resources. I know you'll be able to turn it off though. Other than that, it seems fine. I wish they could have built it ground up though. -_-' Anyway, I won't judge it till I get my hands on it.

What's with all the Vista hate? It's the best gaming OS in existence.

Unless you don't want 4GB+ RAM, then by all means stick with XP.

That happens to me sometimes too, but Wine is getting to be pretty good these days.  Directx 9 performance still really sucks, but many programs work great.  Windows games that can run with Opengl usually work flawlessly.

@frybread: There is a lot of unwarranted Vista hate, but it definitely is not "the best gaming OS in existance".  And if you really need that much RAM and are serious about gaming, Windows XP x64 works just fine (I used it for a year without any problems)

Squilliam said:

You're tempted! Admit it or live with your shame...

but..but..but linux!  She's been so good to me

(alright I am tempted...but only as a gaming OS!)

@frybread: I was about to make fun of you because you didn't know that 4+ GB RAM capability is based on 32 vs 64-bit technology, not XP verses Vista OS. However, I didn't because it is perfectly reasonable for a PC gamer not to know that if it has never come up Also, it may have been a mistype and Epsilon beat me to the punch.

----------------------------------

With games, I was specifically referring to Cedega, a program that gears itself towards making Windows games work on Linux. Sure, it costs some money subscription based, but you are paying them to take newer games and try to make them work on linux. It is an active process, not just releasing a program out into the wild and hoping. Plus, it costs less than most Windows users pay for antivirus.

Here is some math for you:
Windows XP/ Vista OEM costs approx 150$, depending on your version.
Ubuntu costs 0$

So lets see how many more times expensive Windows is over Ubuntu.
150/0 = DIVIDE BY 0 ERROR.

What the hell....lets figure this out.
150/0.1 = 1,500
150/0.01 = 15,000
150/0.001 = 150,000
........
150/0.0000001 = 1,500,000,000
150/0.00000000001 = 1.5x10^13
150/1x10^-92 = 1.5 x 10^92

so the closer we get to dividing 150 by 0, the closer we approach infinity. So, on average, Windows XP/Vista is infinity times more expensive than Linux. Is Windows infinity times better than Linux?

I had some spare time at work Lets see if anyone can refute that logic.

No it's a prefectly good assumption.  You seem bitter about Windows in every thread I've seen you in.  I doubt you read anything in the above articles about Windows 7 running on 1 Gb of RAM vs 2 or its handling of unused windows yet there you are treating exactly the same as Vista.  At least try reading the material before talking about it.

Now, do you really think Direct X is a joke or just DX10?  Read this from start to finish.  OpenGL isn't neck and neck with directx anymore.  It's behind, it doesn't look like it's catching up, and Direct X isn't slowing down.  If you think Direct X is a joke then I'd be interested in what you think of OpenGL which is getting beaten in functionality more and more as time passes.

As for WinMin, that was never stated to be the kernel for Windows 7.  That was a tech demo Microsoft was showing off to show that they can run Windows tasks on a much leaner kernel.  However it's likely a good thing that isn't the kernel.  Vista suffered from a lot of problems with compatibility and support that Windows 7 won't.  Here's a quote:

The goal is to prevent that problem while improving what they've already built.  Is it what you were hoping for?  Maybe not, but it's probably better than the alternative of having another Vista-like launch where things don't work nearly as well as they should.

As far as what Windows 7 means to PC gamers, go back to the first page of this thread and actually read those articles posted by Jagged.  You might enjoy them.

So am I, I am a PC users user after all. I just know that from experience that final product =/= good product.

I was in the Vista beta. I have all the DVD installs for the Final Alpha, Beta 1, Beta 2, RC1, and RC2. Frankly RC2 is a better product then the final product of Windows Vista. That is honestly pathetic.