Belisarivs
-
Posts
756 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Belisarivs
-
-
Vista on both my laptop and tower. Vista came with my laptop, but I upgraded from XP on my tower. Downloaded Vista Ultimate on my tower months before the actual OS released. Didn't need a CD key, and I bypass all Windows Genuine Checks flawlessly. Yeah...I kick that much @#$%. I own a pirated copy of Vista, but it's 100% legit.
I think, that this shouldn't be discussed here. 0AD could be accused from being made by pirated software.
-
At my parents house:
Ubuntu 8.10 on
AMD 64 3700+
1 GB RAM
GF 7600GS
At my flat:
Ubuntu 9.04 on
AMD Phenom II X4 920
4 GB RAM
GF GTX 275
-
Depends on the community, if the community is immature, then censorship will benefit everyone. However if the community is mature, then censorship wouldn't be needed.
It also shows distrust of web admins towards community. Censorship is always wrong. If someone is immature, he must face the consequences.
Anyway, back on topic, post which system you prefer and why?
Well, that depends. It isn't question easy to answer. Both have significant pros and cons. I like both equally.
I like AoK as well as Total War games. Both excel in different way, and both are really good. IMHO.
-
A censor system, eh...
@#$%, @#$%, darn, @#$%, @#$%, @#$%, @#$%, @#$%, and @#$%.
So it replaces most with just "@#$%"...
Censorship sux.
-
I laugh at you.
May I ask why?
-
They didn't construct buildings
Really? I read somewhere, that their brain was bigger than ours. That at least suggests higher intelligence.
Well, I'm curious what led to their extinction. I mean what was their weakness. AFAIK, we are real reason of their extinction.
-
The Romans will also come in numbers. I think I should point out that the huge population that we identify with the Chinese these days is actually a much more recent phenomenon. China, especially in its ancient days, had a much smaller population. A census taken in AD 2 reported 57.7 million individuals, while a census from 140 reveals only 48 million. In contrast, conservative population estimates of the Roman empire at its height in the 2nd century place it at around 65 million people.
Keep in mind, that while soldiers could be recruited from whole China, Romans had IMHO tough times gathering large army.
While Chinese were mostly natives, Roman Empire was mostly conquered region.
-
The water idea got me thinking ans maybe for a mod u could make it so you have to build aqueducts and u could only build buildings near an aqueduct.
And what about Celts or Iberians? They didn't build aqueducts. How can they play random map in desert then? That is IMHO good point against them.
-
Indeed, and that's what's said in the first post, there seems like a lot of people have posted in this thread without reading the previous posts
darn. I apologize for being blind.
Edit: Hey. What's up with text editing? I get word d a m n replaced by darn.
-
Yeah, pirates
, the scourge of society, horror of the fellow and honest gamer... I have played quite a lot of games, but I have never been kidnapped on high sea. So, where is that danger you are talking about?
Scourge of society? In Somalia maybe, but not in Central Europe.
Problem is, 0A.D will be absolutely freeware, so it will be completely legal to dl it, and people can´t be accused of possesing it freely. They´ll just burn CDs and start selling them illgally, taking profit of your honest and hard work. Have you thought about it? What will you do?
I don't get it? When somebody voluntarily pays for something he can have for free, it is solely his problem.
I think, that people from 0AD are doing this for fun, to gain skills and some fame (not sorted in order of importance) and maybe something else. How can you blame them for it? There are larger projects which are spread for free and these aren't distributed in underground for heavy money.
-
Granted, but you don't have to go to vista, so I rest my case on Dx10.
Sure I don't. I just find it unfair, that MS intentionally blocks DX 10 to XP users. Their choice, I know. But simply something smells here.
Through games, duh. OpenGL on my system runs slower for me. I'm sorry, but Open Source doesn't equal commercial software quality.
That simly is not general truth. There is OSS sw which is better than commercial and there is OSS sw worse than commercial. But you can't definitely say that OSS is worse.
BTW, I read somewhere at forums, that 0AD will be OSS. And it is very promising.
And about OpenGL. That also depends. IIRC ATI has worse OpenGL implementation than Nvidia.
If you try some game from ID Software on Nvidia, than it provides some reliable data, but there could still be barriers in Windows that can hit OpenGL performance.
Theoretically, OpenGL should have higher performance due to better marshalling and so on. How it s implemented is another thing.
Why do you continue to argue this? Not everyone uses OpenGL, and the ones that do upgrade their drivers. End of discussion.
It was meant to show how things don't work well. It isn't important whether someone does or doesn't use OpenGL.
I never excused MS about their problems, stop putting words in my mouth.
But you did. You said, that every company has issues as MS does. This is very often meant like "
Apple has nothing to do with this, last i looked you turned a preview of windows 7 into a Windows VS
Linux bashing hell.
Why Apple? That was one example of company betrayed by MS.
Although I take my part on this flame, and apologize for that, your position is not better. You started by rant against Mac, I replied that MS is nothing extraordinary and used Linux as example because I know it better.
So pick a d*mn operating system and stick with it! I don't care about who got stabbed in the back with MS, hell you only point this out cause it IS Microsoft.
So do you. You bashed Mac and Linux without knowledge and wonder that somebody fires back.
Says who? I never agreed with it. Again, stop putting words in my mouth
Who? Court, layers (except those paid by MS), EU .... Enough for me.
Clarify this again, because it's not making sense to me.
You said, that if MS does what it does, it works. But it doesn't. If it worked, people could use virtually any software on any OS.
Like now they can use virtually any OS on any hw.
There were times, when any PC had own OS. MS changed that (and that is really great thing I appreciate) although motives were clear, result was, what we have now.
Next step is sw on any OS. But now is MS an obstacle. If MS didn't prevent it, you could have Windows and run anything on it (please, don't try to tell me, that you can do that now, that is not truth) and if you changed your mind, you could move elsewhere and still use any sw you want. That is true competition MS prevents.
It goes against customers interests and it is unimportant whether you agree/care or not. Competition is always in our interest.
And in case you misunderstood the just sentence, I apologize. It was supposed to be this way:
Saying, that it works, or it is just something unimportant and so is just like putting head into sand.
Firewalls prevent @#$% from coming in, AV's remove @#$% that slipped by. BIG D*MN DIFFERENCE!
Actually AV is primarily intended for residential use. Removing junk is another step when AV failed to prevent you from infection as it usually results in loss of infected data.
Firewall performs same filtering as residential AV but on rather different basis. But AV and Firewall are both primarily packet filters.
Windows does not have inferior design, it has been targeted because it's more popular than Linux is. Linux does need firewalls. No system is immune to viruses, regardless of coding qualities.
That is not truth at all. Windows clearly have inferior design. I don;t know if it was fixed in Vista or Win 7, but in Win XP is any new user set by default with admin rights. You can't install software unless you are logged in as admin. That really is design flaw as user has 2 choices. Either use normal user for web browsing and then log in as admin for installation.
That is not very ergonomic and users will mostly use second option. To log in as admins and browse the web.
What is the difference? It is simple. Viruses ran with admin privileges can damage your system.
Linux has absolutely different model.
You can't login as admin at all. You log in as normal user, but you can run certain apps with admin rights.
Therefore, you don't browse web as admin - virus can't damage your system.But you can still loose your user data, but that is what backup is for and this risk is same for Windows.
So, Security model of Linux is clearly superior to that of Windows.
Also, argument that Windows is more targeted because it is more used is not valid at all.
Data on Linux server are usually more interesting/important than those of some guy with Windows and thus Linux is more important target.
However Windows are widely used as zombies for DDoS. Who knows, maybe you are serving as one of these as well.
Who says I can't? Jesus, pick up a windows PC and figure stuff out, aight? I can go anywhere I want to on the internet, regardless.
I did. Updated and didn't end well.
Oh and just in case you missed the message : STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH
Minsc: "This behaviour may not continue. See the burning stare of my hamster and change your ways."
I don't like the tone you are using. It seems, that next step would really be insult. I wouldn't continue in discussion such as this anyway.
Feneur, please accept my apology. I agree with your decision to close this thread before it further escalates.
PS: I don't know whether I did something wrong with quotations or I simply wrote too long article, but I apologize for that format.
-
BTW, what does RTT mean, please?
-
This doesn't look like official DX 10. Actually, it is proof of my words. MS could release DX 10 for Win XP, but chose it to lure gamers to Vista instead.
When was this challenge? I can say now that DX works a lot faster for me than OpenGL (and don't say its a hardware issue, because my gfx card supports all the GL stuff.
In time of DX 10.
How do you compare DX and OpenGL?
That's why you use drivers provided by the manufacturer, duh.
I do, because I know what MS does. But as I have shown, not everybody does so.
1. all companies have issues
So I have to show only one company who doesn't to prove your words aren't true? It isn't argument that many companies do ugly politics, to excuse MS. Especially when MS is one of the worst of them.
2. you can say the same about any corporate company
Perhaps more or less. But MS clearly is of those worse.
Any company which cooperated with MS then ended with dagger in back. Being it Borland, Apple or any other IT company.
3. is this an argument for or against it?
It is argument against "just darn web browser". It is way people make their living. MS prevents competition. That is clear display, that this goes against customer needs and interests.
4. whats that have to do with this discussion?
MS is one of the ugliest companies. Defending it means agreeing with their nasty behaviour.
Saying, that it works, it is just something unimportant and so on is just like putting head into sand.
My windows are clean. Firewall IS NOT antivirus! there is a clear difference.
Firewall is content filter just as well as AV. Linux on desktop can live without them, Windows can't. Because these have inferior design.
I don't visit sites I don't want to, plain and simple.
So, I'm limited by windows because I don't go to sites I don't want to?
You are limited by Windows, because you CAN'T visit those pages. Not because you don't want to. It isn't question whether you want to go somewhere, but whether you can.
-
And your point is? If you do safe mode, chances are you can easily install your drivers, or atleast rerun the XP cd to copy all the files you need.
Point it, that while almost same computers could make no problem when switching, really different PCs are tough. I tested it with Windows and Linux. Linux worked in 5 minutes, XP didn't boot in any mode.
Well, I'd expect, that installed XP already has all the files needed for running OS. So why reinstalling it?
I never said I didn't NEED antivirus. Please, don't put words into my mouth (rhetorical). I just don't use it, because I don't do anything that will/should get me a virus. If I do, I get some AntiVirus software from another computer, remove internet access on mine, and transfer AV software over to mine. Simple.
No, you said, that your Windows are running clean as an argument against my point, that AV is redundant in Linux becase of its superior design. I point out, that this is not an argument since you already use hw firewall.
Also, it is interesting to note, that while you aren't running AV you don't dare to visit any place you could want and thus it is you who is limited by Windows.
Over a darn web browser? Jesus Christ, really?
1st it was one of loads of issues of this company.
2nd it reveals what kind of company MS is.
3rd it isn't "just darn web browser". Many people make its living from it.
4th it exactly shows, that victories in MS don't lie in their technical superiority at all.
Granted, the behind-the-scenes isn't pretty, but of course if you remove IE, stuff starts to get bad.
I don't believe it at all.
Windows Explorer has IE built right into it, many core features of IE are used inside it.
Sure. MS did it to not to have to remove IE from Windows as it was demanded by court. IE wasn't integrated into it before and integration brings no serious advantages other than argument against removing IE from Windows.
Look. It is always bad if one company uses its domination in one segment of market to reach domination in another segment.
The world has come to a sad place, and if you realize, the consumer's didn't file for this, the competition did, because their product was getting ignored.
Sure. That is how IE won against Netscape. MS bundled IE with Windows and Netscape lost.
So, it wasn't because of quality, but because users already had browser which wasn't in ways of usability much worse than Netscape, however it intentionally crippled standards and thus web developers had to make web pages compatible with IE (they have to do those hacks still) which made those webpages display incorrectly in Netscape browser.
That's not Microsoft's problem, and hey guess what? It all works now, so what's the point of bringing up a case (from 1998) that happened a decade ago?
Sure it isn't. It is our problem. And thinking, that it works now? You want make me laugh? See DirectX. It is the same as with IE.
There was OpenGL. It was open so anybody could make game for all platforms. What did MS? In lust for money to bound gamers to him they developed DirectX. Gates even boasted, that it is faster than OpenGL.
SGI challenged him with OpenGL implementation in FireGL and won when in worst case FireGL was as fast as DirectX while having more features.
That was long time ago. And now? Game developers using DX have to manage resources in their code while OpenGL does it automatically. OpenGL is multiplatform and extensible. DX10 was used to force gamers to move to Vista.
Also, drivers of graphics card bundled in Windows by MS, have OpenGL support removed. I remember from school, that we used 3d simulation program which used SW rendering even though that Radeon 7000 had quite some performance in its time. And why? Because driver provided by MS didn't support OpenGL.
So, just because you don't see that, it doesn't mean it works. You see what MS wants. And that is far from truth.
-
No. They were soldiers as any other. Fact that they were hardened and disciplined while their foes had inferior equipment and usually also training made them shine.
Any soldier of middle ages was seeking fame and fortune.And they were no exception.
-
If the connectors are correct (IDE to IDE), and I don't have to buy an adapter, yeah I can. Boot into safe mode, and perform updates.
And how much those different PS differ? I moved from Intel Celeron 1GHz and Matrox graphics card to Athlon64 with Geforce.
Full DSL internet. Blaster is old news, and my router firewall blocks all the junk that tries to get through (hardware firewall ftw).
That explains it all. Sorry, but you can't argument that you don't need Antivirus while you are behind hw firewall.
I mean, when a company has a monopoly, it´s ussually because their products are very good, better than the competence. However, one could overally argue Macintosh and/or Linux is better than Windows (be it Vista or XP). But somehow, Microsoft still has the edge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
It is just example of dirty games so typical for MS. This company just has poor moral credit.
-
Well, let me explain: My graphics drivers didn't work, my cards failed to load, both sound and networking, and even USB support was limited.
Hm. That happened in old days and happens from time to time. Same for Windows. But these are more supported by hw vendors while Linux developers have ofter reverse engineer. Not fault of Linux design but choice of hw vendors.
Luna is rather nice to me. It was a welcoming change to the dull gray theme. It's a matter of opinion, and I won't try to change you there.
OK. I have seen nicer themes, but hat is about choice of anybody.
When you say 'this', refer to which OS. We've gone through a number of them, so it's getting hard for me to keep up.
Well, I'll let it be.
Not for me. I remember using the RTM for several months before I was able to get internet out to get SP2. I had no stability issues (other than that my new harddrive which was 1tb was an expensive paper weight).
You had slow internet or no internet at all? Without internet, Windows could be rather stable. But after internet connection, Blaster would shoot them down right away.
Someone can't install it correctly, or the hardware was crap. I used a 10 year old Gamer system that worked flawlessly. Occasionally BSOD'd because the processor failed, so that wasn't Windows' fault. How do I know it was the processor? I changed it out, and it worked no issues.
OK then. Hw issues are always bad. But I bet, you cant take HDD with installed Windows from old PC, put it into new PC and in 5 minutes browse web. Can you ;-) I can.
I've done too many XP installations for it to be luck. I used my dad's old OEM RTM Windows XP disk, and idk if that affects anything, but I've used it on several PC's to get them up and running, and they haven't had problems since.
I also did many of them. Keep in mind, that Windows also rely heavily on supporting software which Linux doesn't need. Like antivirus and other such borgware. Windows without them could be infested really quickly.
My brother reported to me, that one guy didn't perform antivirus control of wireless signal he provided internet through, and 75% of client machines (Windows is here heavy majority) were infested and went down.
-
Internet, display options, etc. I know these are software issues, so don't be ranting about that.
I don't get this point at all.
Guess I misunderstood the licenses that linux uses.
OK. If you use GPL code, you must release your work in GPL. But You don't have to use GPL code at all and thus release you work under other License.
Yes, the GUI was skinnable, but Luna was the big change. 98, by default couldn't do what Luna can. If there's a mod out there, that's a plus.
Luna is ugly and many users revert back to old gui.
Just curious, but what Luna can while themes for Win 9x couldn't? Personally, I toyed with shell replacements in Win 9x a lot, too. And these were able to make things than themes in Win XP can do now.
I know when the NT kernel was here, why else would there be a 'Windows NT', which was designed for Workstations, hence the name Windows NT 4.0 Workstation. For the basic user, NTFS and the NT Kernel weren't introduced until 2000.
Discussion started about "new" kernel in Win XP. I said, that this kernel is old (improved) Win NT kernel which was based on VAX VMS from 70's.
That is all.
You contradict yourself here. You say that these new features were useless, yet in the next sentence you say SP2 delivered these features that users wanted. If they were useless to them, why would they want to use them? Plus, the RTM Windows XP was pretty good to me. It was more stable than previous NT & DOS Kernals.
No. I said, that in release time were XP unstable like Win 9x and thus new features were useless until SP2 made Win XP stable.
I have seen too many dead Windows XP and seen too many BSOD (even short after installation) to take your statement about quality into account.
Now, I boot them from time to time, and they are very stable. But in earlier times the definitely weren't.
Perhaps you were lucky, or I was unlucky, but our experiences differ a lot.
-
I'm not forgetting that Linux and Windows aren't binarily compatible. I know that, I've used Linux before (it was...bleh), and a lot of the features I could do in windows, I was unable to do in Linux.
Which features?
Why is it that vendors don't support Linux?
Because Linux is in minority and is binarily incompatible with Windows.
mostly because of License issues, since vendors would have to OS their software, which commercial developers don't normally do.
You can't be serious with that? Or were Neverwinter Nights, Matlab and many other programs and games opensourced? No, they weren't.
Argument with license reveals clear misunderstanding.
Brought nothing new? Hello! Did you miss the entire GUI update? Or the fact that it was off the older DOS Kernal. Oh, lets not forget that it dropped FAT. Drive support for 120gb (later upgraded to even larger in SP2).
GUI remained pretty much the same. Win 9x were already skinnable. NT kernel was here since Win NT as well as NTFS. Drivers of such size were unavailable or too expensive anyway, so no change here for basic user.
With SP2 Win XP significantly changed and improved in stability and finally gave users significant advantage over 98.
Seriously, you cannot say that XP didn't bring something new from windows 98.
Keep in mind, that those new features were quite useless for new users. It was SP2 which dramatically improved XP and made them work as they should in release time. With SP2 were those features really delivered as stability is what preSP2 versions lacked and users wanted.
-
I wouldn't call Conquistadors stupid and incompetent. In fact, they were pretty efficient.
Well, I don't like Praetorians. IMHO they more hurt Rome than served it. If I was Emperor, I'd try to eliminate them ASAP.
-
That's not the trend I'm pointing out here. The trend I'm pointing out here is that we're having the same attitude about Vista that we had 9 years ago with XP.
Sure, but when was XP released, it brought nothing new. It was unstable like Win 9x and needed more resources. Now, when it is pretty much stable there is new version comming.
Not really sure where you got that from. I'm saying that to the home user, 2000 was new because it uses a new file system, from 98's FAT32, as well as a new kernel, one that wasn't DOS based, like it had been.
But that's it. NT kernel which Win 2000 use isn't that new. Vista and Win 7 use NT kernel, too. But improved, of course.
IIRC, Win from NT above rely more on NTFS filesystem, which is much better than FAT.
Hello? Have you even programmed before? If you rewrite a program a different way, chances are, a loop hole similar to those in the past can form. I should know, I've been programming for...oh..I don't know, 2 years. If you have experience in programming, then I'll take back this comment. If not, don't go there.
I definitely disagree. I'm working for IT company, did programming and still I say, that when you rewrite your program completely, you generally replace one groups of bugs for the another.
Sure, there a common bugs like buffer overflow and so, but these are in different components and come up under different circumstances.
If XP were designed like Linux, yes, it can be more secure, but we'd lose a lot of functionality. The average user does not like doing a lot of work. That's why XP was designed the way it was. For ease of use. If you're busy browsing bad sites, of course you're going to get a virus. The average everyday user that checks their email most likely won't get a virus, because they don't go to unusual sites. I should know, my mother does this daily, even uses IE6. No viruses yet.
Linux doesn't lack functionality user would miss by design.
Some features weren't implemented because developers didn't feel the need, there may be many obstacles as missing drivers (which is not caused by developers of Linux, but by hw vendors who simply chose to not to support Linux).
It also lacks lot of polish what is problem for beginners. It brings many disadvantages like need to learn new stuff. But definitely no functionality is lost due to design.
My mother can browse we and read emails and many other things on Linux just as easily as can yours in Windows.
So, your saying that because I can't login, I can set stuff against it? Clarify that for me, and I'll get a proper response.
That was my fault. I edited that text several times and forgot to mention, that you can't login as root.
And that is one of reasons why is Linux more secure.
*sigh*, Improbable doesn't equal impossible. Think about it. It doesn't have to be one exe, it could be built to work on all OS's, each one exploiting a different bug, communicating with each other. It is possible, and it's only a matter of time.
It doesn't mean impossible. But viruses need to be silent, hidden. They need to produce as few traffic as necessary.
Virus, which would attempt to attack more operating systems would be larger and risk more to be found.
You are also forgetting, that Linux (or BSD or whatever) isn't binarily compatible with Windows.
Multiplatform viruses are hard to create and not worthwile.
Anyway, get back on topic please, this argument about XP and Linux is total crap. The topic is really about Windows 7. If you want to continue this bashing of XP which is already 9+ years old, go right ahead. I'll keep defending the most used operating system today.
So, you say, that argument Windows X Linux is crap and state, that you'll defend Windows. OK. Your choice.
-
When XP came out, it had more bugs and holes than vista did! People were ranting saying "I'm sticking with Windows 98!", now we're all on XP saying we're going to stick with XP...seriously, don't you guys see this trend?
And what is wrong with it? Trend is, that MS releases unfinished products which are useless until SP2 at least.
I'm not saying Vista is good, 7 is way better, but I'm also saying that people are blowing vista's problems way out of proportion, when the exact same thing happened in XP. XP was brand new, written from 2000's relatively new technology, just like Vista is brand new too.
MS screwed it, and so they are blamed. I simply consider MS style to release junk and fix it later as wrong regardless version of Windows.
And saying that NT kernel, which is based on kernel of VAX VMS from 70's, is new tech ... LOL.
The reason XP and Vista have similar exploits is because Vista was rewritten.
Sorry? So if you write same software by different way, it will suffer from same mistakes? You can't be serious.
Many patched holes in XP's codebase wouldn't apply here, because it isn't here. Microsoft is doing their best (supposedly) to keep ahead of virus writers, but if there are 100's of these writers out there, granted, there is no such thing now as a 'Secure' Operating System.
That is where proper design helps. If XP were designed the way Linux is, it would be far more resistant to viruses. XP style, that user which surfs the Internet is also admin (who doesn't use this default setting?) is simply wrong as virus has automatically admins rights.
You can't login into X in Linux (well, you can set ti against all warnings as it isn't default setting, but then it is your choice that is not necessary and thus consequences are your fault), while in Windows it is necessary to install software.
Tis only a matter of time before a massive Multi-OS Virus hits us all, then we will all start to point fingers at every OS....
Improbable. Each system has different bugs and these don't share between operating systems.
-
Well, W7 is so appreciated just because it is better than Vista. But Vista was lot worse than XP. So no change here.
W7 is actually what was SP2 for Vista supposed to be. But they wanted to let people pay twice for same thing and avoid doomed name of Vista. Other than that, no changes worth your money.
-
Advantage of using Ubuntu is, that it is in fact Debian. So, if you decide to move to Debian later, you'll be in environment you know already.
Same packaging system (I even seldom install packages from Ubuntu to Debian and vice versa, but it isn't suggested unless you have some experience), same own features you notice as you get more advanced ...
For example, in /usr/share/doc/package you can usually find files like debian.howto, which is quick guide to make something work. It is both in Ubuntu and Debian.
Whats your specs?
in General Discussion
Posted
Actually, it's not that bad at all.
DX 10 brings in nothing new. For example Crysis on XP runs much faster and is often nicer than on Vista.
You have to tweak settings and configs, though.
That suggests, that DX 10 sucks and details are intentionally crippled on DX 9 (as these can be much enhanced by editing configs).
Also, DX 10 was supposed to be much faster because Mode switching was finally introduced to DX (something what OpenGL is having for ages) and thus making (only theoretically) DX somewhat competitive with otherwise faster OpenGL.
Have a look at this page:
http://www.ddworld.cz/index.php?option=com...=1&limitstart=1
Specs:
* Procesor: Core 2 Duo E6600 4BM L2
* Motherboard: Asus P5B Commando
* Graphics card: ASUS 8800GTS 320MB
* RAM: 2x 1GB Kingmax DDR800
* Disk: WD Raptor 10000ot. 37.5GB
* Fortron Epsilon 600W
* Sound: Soundblaster X-Fi Extreme Music.
It is in Czech, but you can see screens there (with Vista, pictures are sometimes slightly blurred - see the screen with two silenced pistols with mountains in background. Namely mountain at top left corner is terribly blurred for Vista) and FPS and compare for yourself that DX 10 is either improperly applied in Crysis or really sucks.
Also see the FPS. XP has never worse results and look.
FPS are rather low everywhere. That was intentional as beauty and details were preferred over framerate.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was same for other games.
And my specs?
Procesor: AMD Phenom II 920 (best balance between performance and cost for quadcore)
4GB RAM
Geforce GTX 275
1TB and 320GB disk
64bit Ubuntu and openSUSE
And also 32bit XP as gameloader (heh, those MS suckers can't even apply PAE properly so I have only 3.25GB RAM available here
)