WinDVD 9 verus PDVD 3319a/3370a

[PrincipalityFusion]

Vista Brings A Little To The Table

While I think Vista has it's issues, I whole heartedly think that Vista Media Center is tons better than XP Media center. Also, if good drivers are used, Vista (IMO) seems more stable and responsive than XP.

As far as DRM goes, I haven't had any issues with anything i've tried to do (AnyDVD for movies and SoundTaxi for music). My vids play fine and my music sounds wonderful. I don't think Vista is the best thing since sliced bread by no means as i still can't figure out why I'm not being offered service pack 1 through update yet, but Vista has been more than cooperative for me and I think the administrative tweak features you gain access to through gpedit are so much easier to deal with than XP.

So for the super tech heads like James, Peer, and the other guys who can totally take Vista apart, you probably see many things you don't like, but for us mid level techies, its just fine.

And by the way, you can totally turn off UAC through gpedit (the correct way to turn UAC off).

 

[Webslinger]

And by the way, you can totally turn off UAC through gpedit (the correct way to turn UAC off).

The fist thing I do on any Vista install is to disable UAC. I hate it. Even if you have it set to not bug you every time you do something, it's basically still duplicating functions in many Third Party Security programs anyway.

 

[bk1987]

im using a 8600gts with a dual boot XP & Vista. I have given up using Xp when it comes to HDM aside from xp being buggy, vista provides a superior picture and this is using either pwr dvd, Nero or Win Dvd 9, This is what i have seen and this is how it is on my machine, and this is coming from a person who started using Vista as a last resort because i just was'nt getting the results i was looking for under XP and now my HTPC has exceeded my expectations with vista , its almost time for me to say good buy to XP

 

[Webslinger]

im using a 8600gts with a dual boot XP & Vista. I have given up using Xp when it comes to HDM aside from xp being buggy, vista provides a superior picture and this is using either pwr dvd, Nero or Win Dvd 9,

It's not Vista that's providing you with the better picture. On a system in my household with an 8800 Ultra, there's no PQ difference between Vista and XP while watching video. It's possible you have some sort of driver or setting issue under XP. Actually, on numerous systems I've seen no difference (with respect to PQ while watching HD-DVDs between Vista and XP) even using ATI cards that are arguably better suited for HTPCs

 

[scmeis1]

My ass it should... what is Vista giving us that could not be done on XP?

PAP, which XP does not offer and vista will some time soon.

 

[bk1987]

It's not Vista that's providing you with the better picture. On a system in my household with an 8800 Ultra, there's no PQ difference between Vista and XP while watching video. It's possible you have some sort of driver or setting issue under XP. Actually, on numerous systems I've seen no difference even using ATI cards that are arguably better suited for HTPCs.

yes i believe it true it is a driver issue with Nvidia and Xp but PQ aside i find these HDM players are far less buggy under Vista, i could have gotten a ATI card but it was either keep what i had ( 8600gts) and get Vista, i felt Vista would be better supported in the future.

i feel this helps explain it a little, http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/26/avivo_hd_vs_purevideo/index.html

 

[Webslinger]

yes i believe it true it is a driver issue with Nvidia and Xp but PQ aside i find these HDM players are far less buggy under Vista, i could have gotten a ATI card but it was either keep what i had ( 8600gts) and get Vista, i felt Vista would be better supported in the future.

i feel this helps explain it a little, http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/26/avivo_hd_vs_purevideo/index.html

Yeah, that's a driver limitation he's referring to with the 8600 in XP (at the time the article was written).

 

[SamuriHL]

Yeah, that's a driver limitation he's referring to with the 8600 in XP.

WHAT?! A driver limitation in your beloved XP?! Say it isn't so!

 

[Webslinger]

WHAT?! A driver limitation in your beloved XP?!

And the ATI card at the time the article was written didn't have that post processing issue in XP (nor Vista).

By the way, I don't love XP. Loving anything produced by Microsoft makes me a little queasy.

Say it isn't so!

Says the Vista (and Blu-ray) fanboy!

(If you're gonna misrepresent me, I'm gonna misrepresent jooo!)

 

[SamuriHL]

And the ATI card at the time the article was written didn't have that post processing issue in XP (nor Vista).

By the way, I don't love XP. Loving anything produced by Microsoft makes me a little queasy.

You know I'm just giving you a hard time.

 

[Webslinger]

You know I'm just giving you a hard time.

Yeah, I know, Mr. Vista.

 

[SamuriHL]

Yeah, I know, Mr. Vista.

I still have one HTPC running MCE2k5, so... I am NOT, however, impressed with MS' declaration that MCE will only be updatable to SP3 via WU and not via the stand alone installer. MS doesn't get a lot of love from me either.

 

[ocgw]

I also have a 8800GT but Vista 32. WinDVD 9 has the most usable first version of a HD software player ever. The first versions of PDVD, Nero and TMT all were crap, but WinDVD 9 plays 99% of my discs flawlessly (3 out of 300 give me problems). No stuttering or whatsoever, except some small stability issues.

You people just have to realize that these applications are made for Vista first cause XP is simply dated regarding technology. It's much harder to implement new technology in old software for example the HDCP chain, which is supported natively by Vista, but not XP. So I do not blame any software company if they focus on Vista. I would do the same. Of course at some point, they should not forget the many XP users, but Vista should always have higher priority.

Ummmm......Vista is a step backwards imho, lil' disappointed w/ x64 too lol

ocgw

peace

 

[ocgw]

Them's fightin' words!!!

Yeah, I agree with James. I would say stick with XP (unless you want to play games that support DirectX 10).

In June, the rumour is ATI is going to be releasing its HD 4000 series of cards. About that same time I will stick Vista 64bit Ultimate on a raid 1 config in my new system that I am slowly building. And I will have Windows XP pro on another hard drive(s). I will only be using Vista for games that support DirectX 10. This is fairly similar in concept to what I did to my girlfriend's rig (but she likes Vista for some reason; I guess she likes Aero, but whatever . . .).

Even though DirectX 10.1 is mostly being sneered at, I was a bit shocked to see the 9800X2 still not support 10.1. ATI's 3870x2 does support 10.1 The argument is that by the time games support 10.1, we'll need to upgrade our video cards anyway.

My main PC is a gamin rig, & a HTPC in 1, & any gain you get from directx 10 will be lost on the 10% performance hit from vista, gamers who know wouldn't 'fool around" w/ vista any more than they would a wireless gaming mouse

ocgw

peace

 

[ocgw]

WHAT?! A driver limitation in your beloved XP?! Say it isn't so!

Ummmm......the limitation is in hardware acceleration w/ the nvidia drivers for xp, ATI driver works fine, it is that nvidia is to blame, this sucks if you have a mid-level nvidia gfx card, but if you have a 8800 series you have enough "raw horse power" to manage w/ out full hardware acceleration

ocgw

peace

 

[SamuriHL]

Ummmm......the limitation is in hardware acceleration w/ the nvidia drivers for xp, ATI driver works fine, it is that nvidia is to blame, this sucks if you have a mid-level nvidia gfx card, but if you have a 8800 series you have enough "raw horse power" to manage w/ out full hardware acceleration

ocgw

peace

I'm actually well aware of this, but, Webbie loves to give me a hard time quite a bit so I couldn't resist turning the tables a little bit. That post was completely tongue in cheek.

 

[Webslinger]

gamers who know wouldn't 'fool around" w/ vista

Well then these gamers who apparently "know" can play with inferior looking graphics while those with similar rigs to the one I game on can't tell the difference between 100 fps and 90 fps. Yes, there is a performance hit; I agree with you. However, if you (not you specifically, but just in general) care about the increased quality offered by DX10, then there's not much choice. If all you care about is fragging people in multiplayer first person shooter games, then I suppose that's a concern if your opponent is using XP and can take advantage of a game that uses multiplayer servers that don't cap frames per second (to even things out for players with less than stellar rigs). Either way, being able to boot into either OS is a simple solution.

I am not a multiplayer first person shooter fan (I find these games become fairly mindless; there's only so many variations of capture the flag that you can play). Although Bioshock is a FPS (mostly), I didn't dislike the game. I preferred playing Bioshock in Vista for the slightly better eye-candy. What's the point in playing that game in XP if you have a decent gaming rig and Vista? It's not a multiplayer game, and if someone is getting at least 50-60 frames per second in that game with a DirectX 10 card under Vista, why would they use XP instead? I could be wrong, but I suspect a game like Alan Wake is probably going to look much better under Vista as well.

 

[Webslinger]

I'm actually well aware of this, but, Webbie loves to give me a hard time quite a bit so I couldn't resist turning the tables a little bit. That post was completely tongue in cheek.

Yeah, especially considering all the driver issues you've had with Vista.

 

[SamuriHL]

Yeah, especially considering all the driver issues you've had with Vista.

Who, me?? Theoretically I still have one as I posted my nero log in another thread. It's "mostly" working but CPU utilization is beyond ridiculous. I've got all the latest drivers for my hardware. I find it REALLY difficult to believe now that SP1 is out and Vista's been on the shelf for over a year and some change that we'd have any driver problems. ROFLMAO!

 

[ocgw]

Well then these gamers who apparently "know" can play with inferior looking graphics while those with similar rigs to the one I game on can't tell the difference between 100 fps and 90 fps. Yes, there is a performance hit; I agree with you. However, if you (not you specifically, but just in general) care about the increased quality offered by DX10, then there's not much choice. If all you care about is fragging people in multiplayer first person shooter games, then I suppose that's a concern if your opponent is using XP and can take advantage of a game that uses multiplayer servers that don't cap frames per second (to even things out for players with less than stellar rigs). Either way, being able to boot into either OS is a simple solution.

I am not a multiplayer first person shooter fan (I find these games become fairly mindless; there's only so many variations of capture the flag that you can play). Although Bioshock is a FPS (mostly), I didn't dislike the game. I preferred playing Bioshock in Vista for the eye-candy. What's the point in playing that game in XP if you have a decent gaming rig and Vista? It's not a multiplayer game, and if someone is getting at least 50-60 frames per second in that game with a DirectX 10 card under Vista, why would they use XP instead? Doesn't make much sense to me.

I see your point, yet although while I am a gamer it is only 1 of many activities I partake of on my PC, I burn music, edit pics, print them, & turn them into slide shows, copy DVD movies, edit home movies, & author my own dvd's, & last but not least Blu Ray HTPC duty, I DO admitedly however take my gaming seriously, but not to the point of compromising my PC's performance in every other aspect for a lil' "edge" in a game

Besides, even if I did play a DX10 game (which I don't, I play BF2), I have been reading that DX10 isn't "all that" lol

ocgw

peace