Video card with 256MB or 512MB for Windows Vista ???

[FulciLives]

Hello !!!

Been looking at new video cards and I am trying to stay "on a budget" but I can't seem to find a 512MB card that is cheap yet meets my needs.

I'm trying to go with a Nvidia 7600GT or better. Why? According to the Nvidia website the 7600GT is the "lowest" GPU that supports ALL of the PureVideo functions. Here is a link to the page I am talking about: CLICK HERE

Truth be told I would be fine with a 256MB 7600GT but although I only have WinXP Home now I would like to eventually (though I am in no rush) to upgrade to Windows Vista and I thought I had read that you really need 512MB to get "the most" out of Vista.

Is that true?

Also why can't I seem to find a 512MB 7600GT video card? Seems I can only find 256MB cards for that GPU.

So really I am asking about two things here I guess.

1.) Do you really "need" or "want" a 512MB card for Windows Vista?

and if so then ...

2.) What is the cheapest 512MB Nvidia card with a 7600GT or better Nvidia GPU?

Thanks guys

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[lacywest]

Well .... I'm at work ... 12 midnite to 8 AM ... working really hard

I shall gather up some links for you ... maybe in doing so ... I will learn a thing or too ... myself.

http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=3335

http://hardware.gamershell.com/articles/evga_e-geforce_7600_gt_co_superclocked/index.html

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

ATI Radeon x800GTO 512MB or GeForce 7600GT ??

http://www.xbitlabs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10410

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

http://www.nvnews.net/reviews/xfx_7600gt_xxx/page_6.shtml

The results speak plainly for themselves. XFX has put together a 7600-based card that is nothing short of stunning in the way it performs. Pushing the core and memory to their utter limits, the 7600GT XXX Edition cards provide a level of gaming that has finally allowed me to retire my trusty 6800GTs. I'm going to miss them as they have served me so well for so long, but passing up two cards are powerful as these would be a huge mistake. TigerDirect has it for $149.99
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.thebestcasescenario.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3185

Well, i just got eVGA 7600GT KO 256MB, its got 580MHz core and 1.5GHz in Memory!!! and they advertise it as Vista ready. and ive read in many places that its the best deal....

The more ram the card has the less compression the textures have to go through. And thus, better performance. Now wether that gain is better than more Mhz is debatable...

[Krispy Kritter]

Personally, I would wait for the new DirectX 10 cards. They are the only cards that are supposed to truly support all of the eye candy within Vista which is built around DirectX 10.

[JohnnyMalaria]

Truth be told I would be fine with a 256MB 7600GT but although I only have WinXP Home now I would like to eventually (though I am in no rush) to upgrade to Windows Vista and I thought I had read that you really need 512MB to get "the most" out of Vista.

Is that true?

My quad-boot system has XP Pro SP2 and Vista Ultimate (RTM version, not beta). It has the nVidia 7600GS with 256MB.

Vista rocks with that card.

I am using nVidia's most recent drivers (for Vista RC2) and, unfortunately, they don't provide all the flexibility that the mature XP drivers do (I have a specific need for connecting the secondary display to a standard video monitor - i.e., interlaced 59.97i NTSC. Although the RC2 Vista drivers let me use the secondary display and it seems to select interlaced output, I can't adjust the overscan (which I can with the XP drivers). nVidia claim the retail drivers will be available by the end of January.

See my recent post re Vista performance

You won't be disappointed with the 7600GS on Vista.

Also, my system has 1GB DDR2 RAM - it's just fine with that.

[deadrats]

Hello !!!

Been looking at new video cards and I am trying to stay "on a budget" but I can't seem to find a 512MB card that is cheap yet meets my needs.

I'm trying to go with a Nvidia 7600GT or better. Why? According to the Nvidia website the 7600GT is the "lowest" GPU that supports ALL of the PureVideo functions. Here is a link to the page I am talking about: CLICK HERE

Truth be told I would be fine with a 256MB 7600GT but although I only have WinXP Home now I would like to eventually (though I am in no rush) to upgrade to Windows Vista and I thought I had read that you really need 512MB to get "the most" out of Vista.

Is that true?

Also why can't I seem to find a 512MB 7600GT video card? Seems I can only find 256MB cards for that GPU.

So really I am asking about two things here I guess.

1.) Do you really "need" or "want" a 512MB card for Windows Vista?

and if so then ...

2.) What is the cheapest 512MB Nvidia card with a 7600GT or better Nvidia GPU?

Thanks guys

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

personally i wouldn't "upgrade" to Vista anytime soon, but if you're hell bent on doing so and wish to buy a new video card, wait until the mid range DX10 cards are available early next year.

to purchase a DX9 card, even one with 512mb of onboard ram, is silly.

having said that, if you want a 7600GT class cpu AND 512mb of ram AND uses an nvidia gpu, then your only options are either a 7800GT/7900GT or better.

now if you were willing to go with an ATI card, you could pick up a nice 512mb X1600Pro for well under $200.

oh wait, i just remembered, i'm totally clueless. ignore everything i just said.

[JohnnyMalaria]

There's a lot of confusion about DirectX 10 etc.

You don't need it to get the Vista "eye candy" - Aero Glass works just fine with capable DirectX 9 cards (e.g., the 7600GS).

Where DirectX 10 provides most "benefit" is in gaming/3D intensive apps. And then you'll need games written for DirectX 10, too. Any current games on a DirectX 10 card will be no different than on a DirectX 9 card since they will use the existing DirectX 9 programming interfaces.

Vista has DirectX 9 and DirectX10.

For mainstream use - including video editing and multimedia - the new Windows Display Driver Model (that is a major part of Vista behind the scenes) provides a significant performance boost over XP when comparing DirectX 9 GPUs on identical hardware platforms.

And if your main use is video editing, you'd be better off upgrading your CPU...

EDIT - The 7600GS GPU is listed by nVidia as "Vista Ready" - see http://www.nvidia.com/page/technology_vista_gpu.html

[edDV]

Display card RAM is mostly used to hold textures for games in order to speed object loads. Vista will tap some of this for desktop candy but these need to be scaled to common display chips/cards, not high end gamer cards.

Common Vista computers will ship with 64 to 128MB RAM devoted to display support although this is becoming selectable in CMOS settings on newer machines. Maybe 256MB will be supported but 512MB not likely for Vista desktops and apps.

[JohnnyMalaria]

Common Vista computers will ship with 64 to 128MB RAM devoted to display support although this is becoming selectable in CMOS settings on newer machines. Maybe 256MB will be supported but 512MB not likely for Vista desktops and apps.

Are you refering to integrated GPUs (like Intel's) that share system RAM for display purposes?

[edDV]

Common Vista computers will ship with 64 to 128MB RAM devoted to display support although this is becoming selectable in CMOS settings on newer machines. Maybe 256MB will be supported but 512MB not likely for Vista desktops and apps.

Are you refering to integrated GPUs (like Intel's) that share system RAM for display purposes?

Yes, that is for the mainstream PC/Laptop that will ship with Vista. System memory takes on the role of video memory under DirectX even though it is slower than dedicated display card memory.

Point is Vista needs to target the mainstream PC. Game developers will exploit the extra display card RAM.

But game developers have similar issues that they can't get too far ahead of the installed base for minimum memory requirements. Few games utilize 512MB today. Sweet spot seems to be 128 to 256MB for installed base.

[FulciLives]

Sounds like I will wait for a sub $200 DirectX 10 graphics card. Although I do intend to eventually upgrade to Windows Vista I am not exactly dying to do so ... in short I can wait a bit.

If I can tuck in a somewhat related graphics card question ...

I currently have a Nvidia GForce FX 5300 128MB PCIe graphics card.

I am thinking of getting a 19" 4:3 (not widescreen) LCD computer monitor. Looks like most of them have a native resolution of 1280x1024 so ... will my current Nvidia graphics card be OK with that?

It looks like my time frame will be Christmas for the 19" LCD monitor and probably March 2007 (my birthday is then) for the graphics card.

At least I'd rather get the monitor now and the video card later assuming my current video card won't choke at 1280x1024 ... please note that currently I have a 17" MAG CRT that I run at 1024x768 because that is the highest resolution that I can do at 85Hz ... if I go 1280x1024 then I can't go higher than 60 Hertz which is rather painful. I think that limitation (only 60 Hertz at 1280x1024) is the fault of the monitor (a quickie cheap purchase to replace a dead 17" Sony Trinitron CRT) rather than the graphics card.

Also suggestions on a 19" LCD monitor are most welcomed. I'm looking to spend around $300 and currently I am leaning towards the LG L1970HR or the Samsung 931BF but like I said I am open to suggestions but it has to be something I can get at BEST BUY, CIRCUIT CITY or CompUSA as I am actually making someone buy it for me as a Christmas gift and they don't want to do mail order.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[deadrats]

There's a lot of confusion about DirectX 10 etc.

You don't need it to get the Vista "eye candy" - Aero Glass works just fine with capable DirectX 9 cards (e.g., the 7600GS).

Where DirectX 10 provides most "benefit" is in gaming/3D intensive apps. And then you'll need games written for DirectX 10, too. Any current games on a DirectX 10 card will be no different than on a DirectX 9 card since they will use the existing DirectX 9 programming interfaces.

Vista has DirectX 9 and DirectX10.

For mainstream use - including video editing and multimedia - the new Windows Display Driver Model (that is a major part of Vista behind the scenes) provides a significant performance boost over XP when comparing DirectX 9 GPUs on identical hardware platforms.

And if your main use is video editing, you'd be better off upgrading your CPU...

EDIT - The 7600GS GPU is listed by nVidia as "Vista Ready" - see http://www.nvidia.com/page/technology_vista_gpu.html

i don;t think anyone's confused as no one has made the claim that you need a DX10 card to run Aero. the reason i, and everyone else, advises on getting a DX10 card for Vista is because one of the biggest reasons to "upgrade" to Vista is DX10. if you don't plan on playing any DX10 games, then why "upgrade" from either XP or 2k?

[deadrats]

Sounds like I will wait for a sub $200 DirectX 10 graphics card. Although I do intend to eventually upgrade to Windows Vista I am not exactly dying to do so ... in short I can wait a bit.

If I can tuck in a somewhat related graphics card question ...

I currently have a Nvidia GForce FX 5300 128MB PCIe graphics card.

I am thinking of getting a 19" 4:3 (not widescreen) LCD computer monitor. Looks like most of them have a native resolution of 1280x1024 so ... will my current Nvidia graphics card be OK with that?

It looks like my time frame will be Christmas for the 19" LCD monitor and probably March 2007 (my birthday is then) for the graphics card.

At least I'd rather get the monitor now and the video card later assuming my current video card won't choke at 1280x1024 ... please note that currently I have a 17" MAG CRT that I run at 1024x768 because that is the highest resolution that I can do at 85Hz ... if I go 1280x1024 then I can't go higher than 60 Hertz which is rather painful. I think that limitation (only 60 Hertz at 1280x1024) is the fault of the monitor (a quickie cheap purchase to replace a dead 17" Sony Trinitron CRT) rather than the graphics card.

Also suggestions on a 19" LCD monitor are most welcomed. I'm looking to spend around $300 and currently I am leaning towards the LG L1970HR or the Samsung 931BF but like I said I am open to suggestions but it has to be something I can get at BEST BUY, CIRCUIT CITY or CompUSA as I am actually making someone buy it for me as a Christmas gift and they don't want to do mail order.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

your card is fine, i currently have a couple of setups and they both use a 19" AOpen LCD with a max rez of 1280x1024. my one pc is running a Core 2 Duo E6300 with an ATI X700Pro and the other is a Athlon 64 3400+ with a FX5200 Ultra. both cards are more than powerful enough to run a display (in 2D mode) at the max resolution, it's not until you start doing any intesive 3d gaming that resolution becomes an issue.

[FulciLives]

The questions is not TO UPGRADE OR NOT TO UPGRADE to Windows Vista.

So let's not introduce that into the equation.

My basic original question was based on something I read once that indicated that a 512MB card was considered "optimal" or at least the "minimum optimal" type graphics card for Windows Vista.

I do admit I read that a long time ago so sounds like maybe things have changed and who knows how accurate it was to begin with.

Since affordable DirectX 10 cards are on the way (I think the only models available now are $400 plus models) then I might as well wait. I mean no use buying a DirectX 9 card now with DirectX 10 right around the corner.

My second more recent question is will my current graphics card be OK (short term) running a 19" LCD monitor at 1280x1024 on Windows XP Home.

Thank you.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[cowgoo]

Looking at the dx10 cards out now, I would think that 512 would be minimum optimal. All the cards I've seen have 640 and 768 megs of ram.

[edDV]

The questions is not TO UPGRADE OR NOT TO UPGRADE to Windows Vista.

So let's not introduce that into the equation.

My basic original question was based on something I read once that indicated that a 512MB card was considered "optimal" or at least the "minimum optimal" type graphics card for Windows Vista.

I suspect that was from the perspective of a cutting edge gamer. Mainstream Vista PC's will be shipping with far less than 512MB display RAM and they will be fine for Vista and other non-game apps.

My second more recent question is will my current graphics card be OK (short term) running a 19" LCD monitor at 1280x1024 on Windows XP Home.

I have a machine running fine with a semi lowly ATI 9550 (Theater 200) display card and a ViewSonic 19" LCD (native 1280x1024) like you describe. I got mine for under $200 if the rebate ever arrives. LCD monitors don't flicker like progressive CRT because they have a certain amount of native lag. Therefore, 60Hz looks fine and refreshing faster has no effect.

The one I got has "8ms delay" or lag. It seems OK and doesn't flicker at 60Hz. The newer models are down to 2ms lag.


PS: the FX 5300 is not a "PureVideo" card. I think that starts with some of the 6000 series. That means you will be using last generation DVD acceleration and deinterlacing as I am with the ATI 9550 "Theater 200" vs. "AVIVO".

In addition to DirectX 10 not being ready, I don't think drivers for PureVideo or AVIVO are ready so I plan to delay purchase of new generation display cards until the drivers get better and prices come down. I want to see interlace 480i and 1080i handled better, a H.264 full hardware decode and eventually MPeg2 + H.264 hardware encode.

[FulciLives]

I know my current Nvidia does not support "PureVideo" which is why I wanted a Nvidia 7600GT or better as the 7600GT is the "lowest" card that FULLY supports ALL features of "PureVideo" ... but ... it is better for me to get the 19" LCD Monitor now ... and wait for a new graphics card.

I probably won't have money for a graphics card now until March/April 2007 ... at that time I will get a DirectX 10 card if one is available then that is around $200 ... if not then I'll probably just go with the Nvidia 7600GT.

The two 19" LCD monitors I am looking at both have a 2ms lag and 300 cd/m2 brightness with 1280x1024 native resolution (well it says MAX so I guess I don't know if that is native or not).

One wants to run a LCD monitor at the native resolution for best quality ... yes?

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[JohnnyMalaria]

if you don't plan on playing any DX10 games, then why "upgrade" from either XP or 2k?

Because even non-game applications benefit.

The Windows Display Driver Model (a major new feature of Vista) improves the performance of any video-intensive applications (by that, I mean apps that use the display, not video encoding/decoding).

Also, Vista has Windows DVD Maker - ideal for people who want to quickly create DVDs from their camcorder footage.

And improved support of AV/C devices. Historically, Microsoft have expanded their support in this area with each Service Pack. Originally, the MSDV driver only supported SD DV. Now it supports all the major flavors - 25Mbps, 50Mbps and 100Mbps. Better support for MPEG2-TS streams.

There's a lot more to what Vista offers over XP than just better gaming. Most of it is behind the scenes, though.

After all, Vista is the first MAJOR OS release since Windows 2000. (Internally, Windows 2000 is Windows NT 5.0, XP is NT 5.1 and Vista is 6.0).

[deadrats]

if you don't plan on playing any DX10 games, then why "upgrade" from either XP or 2k?

Because even non-game applications benefit.

The Windows Display Driver Model (a major new feature of Vista) improves the performance of any video-intensive applications (by that, I mean apps that use the display, not video encoding/decoding).

Also, Vista has Windows DVD Maker - ideal for people who want to quickly create DVDs from their camcorder footage.

And improved support of AV/C devices. Historically, Microsoft have expanded their support in this area with each Service Pack. Originally, the MSDV driver only supported SD DV. Now it supports all the major flavors - 25Mbps, 50Mbps and 100Mbps. Better support for MPEG2-TS streams.

There's a lot more to what Vista offers over XP than just better gaming. Most of it is behind the scenes, though.

After all, Vista is the first MAJOR OS release since Windows 2000. (Internally, Windows 2000 is Windows NT 5.0, XP is NT 5.1 and Vista is 6.0).

look, i have thoroughly tested every version of Vista i could get my hands on, including the recently leaked versions and quite frankly i don't know what you are basing your assumptions on.

you claim that WDDM "improves the performance of any video-intensive applications (by that, I mean apps that use the display, not video encoding/decoding)", which leaves me with the following question:

1) what video-intensive applications "use the display"? what does that mean? that the application's gui is going to respond quicker? i'm not sure what you think the new driver model is going to do for performance. in all my tests the new driver model had considerable higher ram overhead and thus requires you to use even more ram than previously.

Windows DVD Maker is a joke, there's tons of free open source apps that will allow you to input video from a camcorder and author a dvd. furthermore, DVD Maker is only available with the more expensive Vista variants.

as for this claim:

"And improved support of AV/C devices. Historically, Microsoft have expanded their support in this area with each Service Pack. Originally, the MSDV driver only supported SD DV. Now it supports all the major flavors - 25Mbps, 50Mbps and 100Mbps. Better support for MPEG2-TS streams."

i don't know where you get this from. i'm currently using Win 2k and have no problem working with mpeg-2 transport streams of any resolution and bitrate. i can also work with them under Linux and BSD and have done so numerous times, so i'm not entirely sure were you get the idea that Vista suddenly opens up a whole new world of working with either digital video or HD TS files, but i can do that right now using either a 6 year old OS or even a free OS.

there is absolutely no reason to switch to Vista if you're not a gamer and this is coming from a diehard windows user.

[edDV]

...
The two 19" LCD monitors I am looking at both have a 2ms lag and 300 cd/m2 brightness with 1280x1024 native resolution (well it says MAX so I guess I don't know if that is native or not).

One wants to run a LCD monitor at the native resolution for best quality ... yes?

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

Yes they should be run at native resolution for pixel by pixel display. If you ran the display card at say 1152x964, to get more readable text, the monitor would need to reinterpolate from 1152x964 to 1280x1024 thus causing some softening and text jaggies.

The ViewSonic punishes you for doing this by displaying an annoying warning that you are not running the correct resolution. There must be some way to turn this off but I haven't found it. When installing Windows, it is impossible to run at 1280x1024.

[saggitarius]

When looking at an LCD monitor, remember that higher contrast ratios are better and lower refresh rates are better. e.g. 700:1 contrast ratio and 4ms refresh rates. Also, if your video card has a DVI interface, get an LCD that also has that.

I have a ViewSonic 1912wb which I just got in the summer after my Dell E770s CRT died.
It is a Wide Screen which you mentioned you weren't looking for, but that was what I wanted at the time.

My only complaint about LCD monitors is the colour reproduction when printing. I still need to get my colours down on paper where what I see on screen is what I get on paper. I generally do alot of Photoshop stuff with my digital pics and sometimes the colours are a bit off, not like my CRT days.

Samsung is probably the best LCD maker out there from what I have read about them, and they also make their LCDs for other brands as well (I believe ViewSonic is one of them)

Good Luck with your shopping

[JohnnyMalaria]

look, i have thoroughly tested every version of Vista i could get my hands on, including the recently leaked versions and quite frankly i don't know what you are basing your assumptions on.

I'm basing my assumptions on what I have learned as a developer of video-related software for Windows. I have read the SDK documentation. I have run tests on XP and Vista platforms.

you claim that WDDM "improves the performance of any video-intensive applications (by that, I mean apps that use the display, not video encoding/decoding)", which leaves me with the following question:

1) what video-intensive applications "use the display"? what does that mean? that the application's gui is going to respond quicker? i'm not sure what you think the new driver model is going to do for performance. in all my tests the new driver model had considerable higher ram overhead and thus requires you to use even more ram than previously.

Er...any that display the video in a window. Did you read my other post that I linked to? There's a good example - two full frame size windows plus two quarter resolution windows and a fifth one generated on the task bar - all these *use the display*. The WDDM architecture permits greater performance. I'm not going to waste my time explaining why. Google will tell you.

Windows DVD Maker is a joke, there's tons of free open source apps that will allow you to input video from a camcorder and author a dvd. furthermore, DVD Maker is only available with the more expensive Vista variants.

No it's not. There are many people (as seen on this forum) that often just want a simple way to put their camcorder footage onto DVD, without the pain of using a multitude of freeware apps that have a steep learning curve. And the RTM version is better than the one provided in the betas and RCs. Have you tested the RTM version of Vista????

as for this claim:

"And improved support of AV/C devices. Historically, Microsoft have expanded their support in this area with each Service Pack. Originally, the MSDV driver only supported SD DV. Now it supports all the major flavors - 25Mbps, 50Mbps and 100Mbps. Better support for MPEG2-TS streams."

i don't know where you get this from. i'm currently using Win 2k and have no problem working with mpeg-2 transport streams of any resolution and bitrate. i can also work with them under Linux and BSD and have done so numerous times, so i'm not entirely sure were you get the idea that Vista suddenly opens up a whole new world of working with either digital video or HD TS files, but i can do that right now using either a 6 year old OS or even a free OS.

Kind of ironic for someone who claims "but me, i have a life and more importantly, i'm not stuck 10 years in the past."

there is absolutely no reason to switch to Vista if you're not a gamer and this is coming from a diehard windows user.

You missed the pointed. I'm not talking about handling those streams once they are on your system. I'm talking about native OS support for the transmission via Firewire and USB.

Read Microsoft's SDK documentation about MSDV and MSTape.

Oh...if you don't want Vista, don't get it. But there are reasons beyond gaming to do so. Again, there's a lot of literature out there about the new features of Vista that make it a major release step. I'm not going to spoon feed it to you, though.

Almost final thought: See the opening statement here.

Final thought: Your knowledge in the areas of interest to people on this forum is quite entertaining. I mean, black borders don't use bit rate. My arse.

[pfh]

Get the 7600 for now or maybe as a gift then wait till next Christmas for current 8800 series cards to finally get below $300 to drive Dx10 applications that will probebly be more prevalent by then. For now you'll be doing yourself a big favor by dumping that way old FX card. I'm currently using a 6800GT 256mb card and plan on waiting out the price drop on the Dx10 cards too. But my God, how have you lived with the FX5500 so long? (wink, wink)

[deadrats]

Final thought: Your knowledge in the areas of interest to people on this forum is quite entertaining. I mean, black borders don't use bit rate. My arse.

your ass doesn't use bitrate, or maybe it does, either way that's a personal probelm.

at any rate, the black bars i was refering to are the ones at the top and bottom of a video stream that appear as a result of trying to display an image with an aspect ratio of 16:9 on a display that uses pixels that have a 1:1 ratio. they are the same black bars that appear when you try and play a ws dvd on a standard 4:3 tv. and those black bars do not have any bitrate because they are not part of the video. if anyone can't understand that it's not my problem.

I'm basing my assumptions on what I have learned as a developer of video-related software for Windows. I have read the SDK documentation. I have run tests on XP and Vista platforms.

what "video-related software have you developed and how much of a performance increase can we expect from using Vista? does your software use hardware assist? if not, then what is the exact mechanism by which your software experiences a performance increase thanks to the new driver model.

i'm guessing you must be a .NET "developer", not a real programmer. if you stuck with using C/C++ for the apps you coded, then you wouldn't need a different driver model to get better performance, your code would stand on its own.

seriously, is the code you wrote open source? is it possible to get a look at it, as i'm dying to see the code that realizes better performance thanks to a new driver model.

Er...any that display the video in a window. Did you read my other post that I linked to? There's a good example - two full frame size windows plus two quarter resolution windows and a fifth one generated on the task bar - all these *use the display*. The WDDM architecture permits greater performance. I'm not going to waste my time explaining why. Google will tell you.

i really wouldn't rely on google for my developer related training if i were you. when i was studying physics and comp sci in college we didn't have google to explain concepts to us, the professors were able to explain statement like "The WDDM architecture permits greater performance".

for what it's worth, the example you give, with the 5 different windows, i can do that now on win 2k in real time, and if i use Linux with Compiz and AIGLX i can do it on a rotating 3d cube and i could do it with Solaris 10 + Project Looking Glass at least 3 years ago and OS X users have been doing it for years.

hell, i can open up 3 different instance of VLC and play 3 different HD movies simultaneously on win 2k right now in real time, how much more performance do you think Vista will offer?

No it's not. There are many people (as seen on this forum) that often just want a simple way to put their camcorder footage onto DVD, without the pain of using a multitude of freeware apps that have a steep learning curve. And the RTM version is better than the one provided in the betas and RCs. Have you tested the RTM version of Vista????

yes i have. don't ask were i got it, but trust me i've tested it and i'm not impressed.

furthermore, you're telling me DVD Maker is the best way to get camcorder footage onto a dvd? get real!!!

Kind of ironic for someone who claims "but me, i have a life and more importantly, i'm not stuck 10 years in the past."

you should seriously consider not quoting people out of context.

You missed the pointed. I'm not talking about handling those streams once they are on your system. I'm talking about native OS support for the transmission via Firewire and USB.

it makes no difference one way or the other if the OS has native support for the transmission via Firewire or USB because there are a ton of apps that already have that functionality. but if you really want to get technical, instead of investing $300+ on a "new" OS maybe it would be smarter to invest $400 and buy a camcorder that records right to dvd, i saw one in Best Buy that records in 720x480 NTSC right to DVD and it cost $400.

Oh...if you don't want Vista, don't get it. But there are reasons beyond gaming to do so. Again, there's a lot of literature out there about the new features of Vista that make it a major release step. I'm not going to spoon feed it to you, though.

that's because your spoon, much like your argument, is empty.

[JohnnyMalaria]

what "video-related software have you developed and how much of a performance increase can we expect from using Vista? does your software use hardware assist? if not, then what is the exact mechanism by which your software experiences a performance increase thanks to the new driver model.

Jeez - try clicking on the link in my signature - you can download the software and see for yourself.

i'm guessing you must be a .NET "developer", not a real programmer. if you stuck with using C/C++ for the apps you coded, then you wouldn't need a different driver model to get better performance, your code would stand on its own.

Wrong.

C/C++/handcrafted SSE2 code. Wouldn't touch .NET with a 10-foot barge pole.

"Smart" DV codec engine rewritten from the ground up to permit realtime processing and minimal recompression requirements. Most functions are performed while in the DCT domain.

But the boost comes from the GUI, GDI and DirectShow related code. Without any rewriting of code, the software can do more under Vista than XP.

seriously, is the code you wrote open source? is it possible to get a look at it, as i'm dying to see the code that realizes better performance thanks to a new driver model.

No, it isn't.

I refer you again to my other post. The same software on the same hardware is capable of smooth playback under conditions that cause it to stutter on XP. But if you can't be bothered to read up on it yourself....

i really wouldn't rely on google for my developer related training if i were you. when i was studying physics and comp sci in college we didn't have google to explain concepts to us, the professors were able to explain statement like "The WDDM architecture permits greater performance".

I don't get my developer related training from Google. I was suggesting you start there since the concept of looking at SDK documentation on MSDN evades you.

furthermore, you're telling me DVD Maker is the best way to get camcorder footage onto a dvd? get real!!!

As proven in your other posts, you are incapable of reading and, instead, invent your own version of what was written.

I didn't say DVD Maker is the best way. Go back and look at what I said. On second thoughts, don't bother.

[deadrats]

I refer you again to my other post. The same software on the same hardware is capable of smooth playback under conditions that cause it to stutter on XP. But if you can't be bothered to read up on it yourself....

i took a look at your other post but i see nothing there to support your claim that Vista's new driver model results in improved performance. you make the claim that you were able to play 2 DV files that reside on an external harddrive without any flaws when using Vista but you offer nothing in the way of proof to support your claim that it can't be done with XP (i'm willing to bet money that XP64 offers better performance that 32 bit Vista).

then you make the claim that Vista's supposed improved performance comes it's new driver model, yet you offer nothing to support your conjecture.

assuming Vista does offer improved performance, i can think of 2 different reasons other than the new driver model:

1) the Vista is known to be a better threaded OS than previous Windows versions, the smoother playback could be the result of the improved thread handling (Vista even has a service that actively reorders groups of threads for better performance). if anything is giving Vista a performance boost, that would be my first guess.

2) Vista more than likely makes better/more extensive use of SSE/SSE2/SSE3 optimizations. the software you tested with is your own software which you acknowledge makes use of SSE/SSE2 extensions, so a more likely explaination for your percieved performance increase.

you could try running the same test on both XP and Vista and use either SoftICE or even better Rasta Ring 0 Debugger and verifying for yourself exactly where the extra performance is coming from.

lastly i noticed you did something with your software that just annoys the hell out of me and i'm wondering why closed source developers do it: you made your software only work with 32 bit XP SP2, why? what "features" are missing from 2k or XP64 that wouldn't allow your software to function properly? why is it open source software, no matter how complex, can run on any Windows version but closed source equivalents "must" be run on 32 bit XP SP2?

maybe you can clear up the mystery for me...

[JohnnyMalaria]

lastly i noticed you did something with your software that just annoys the hell out of me and i'm wondering why closed source developers do it: you made your software only work with 32 bit XP SP2, why? what "features" are missing from 2k or XP64 that wouldn't allow your software to function properly? why is it open source software, no matter how complex, can run on any Windows version but closed source equivalents "must" be run on 32 bit XP SP2?

maybe you can clear up the mystery for me...

Hmmm. Fair questions. You are welcome to try it on XP64 - we haven't tested it on a 64-bit platform yet. And porting it to be native 64-bit is not a priority right now.

Why XP SP2? Simply because of new API functionality that just isn't available prior to SP2.

e.g., GetSystemTimes in kernel32.dll (actually SP1) is used for the CPU Indicator. Could we have written our own routine? Perhaps. But at a cost of not getting the primary functionality of the software done.

e.g., changes to the AV/C commands supported by the MSDV filter's IAMExtDevice and IAMExtTransport interfaces. This has a direct impact on the ability to control an attached DV device from the software.

And our software is still in beta. We *may* retrofit it to support older OSes once it is launched.

I'm surprised, though, that you didn't include the SSE2 requirement as an annoyance. The reason for that is quite simple - it's been a long, long time since IA32-based CPUs didn't have SSE2 (since around 2000). Handcrafting SSE2 is one thing. Overcoming the shortcomings of processors without some of the instructions is another - especially when that demographic is unlikely to represent a significant portion of our customer base. Nevertheless, once the critical functionality of the software is finished, we may allow it to install on non-SSE2 capable machines but disable those features that require it.

But the 80:20 rule, well, rules.

[deadrats]

lastly i noticed you did something with your software that just annoys the hell out of me and i'm wondering why closed source developers do it: you made your software only work with 32 bit XP SP2, why? what "features" are missing from 2k or XP64 that wouldn't allow your software to function properly? why is it open source software, no matter how complex, can run on any Windows version but closed source equivalents "must" be run on 32 bit XP SP2?

maybe you can clear up the mystery for me...

Hmmm. Fair questions. You are welcome to try it on XP64 - we haven't tested it on a 64-bit platform yet. And porting it to be native 64-bit is not a priority right now.

Why XP SP2? Simply because of new API functionality that just isn't available prior to SP2.

e.g., GetSystemTimes in kernel32.dll (actually SP1) is used for the CPU Indicator. Could we have written our own routine? Perhaps. But at a cost of not getting the primary functionality of the software done.

e.g., changes to the AV/C commands supported by the MSDV filter's IAMExtDevice and IAMExtTransport interfaces. This has a direct impact on the ability to control an attached DV device from the software.

And our software is still in beta. We *may* retrofit it to support older OSes once it is launched.

I'm surprised, though, that you didn't include the SSE2 requirement as an annoyance. The reason for that is quite simple - it's been a long, long time since IA32-based CPUs didn't have SSE2 (since around 2000). Handcrafting SSE2 is one thing. Overcoming the shortcomings of processors without some of the instructions is another - especially when that demographic is unlikely to represent a significant portion of our customer base. Nevertheless, once the critical functionality of the software is finished, we may allow it to install on non-SSE2 capable machines but disable those features that require it.

But the 80:20 rule, well, rules.

re: SSE2 - as you pointed out SSE2 is present on pretty much every cpu currently available, as a matter of fact i can't think of a single cpu (recently released) that doesn't support it.

i do have a problem with SIMD instructions in general, regardless of which ones we're talking about the SSE family, 3D NOW, ALTIVEC, they all serve the function of trying to tie software to a particular cpu vendor and quite frankly they are not needed and/or used as a "head-fake" a way of manipulating benchmarks to make a particular cpu look better than it is.

Intel purposely crippled the P4's FPU in order to promote SSE2 and they have never undone the damage. the P4 had 3 ALU's 2 of which ran at twice the clock speed. why couldn't they do the same with their FPU? why did they choose to beef up the SSE unit in the Core 2 Duo so that it now can fetch/execute/retire a 128 bit SSE instruction in a single cycle rather than do away with specialized SIMD units and instead go with 3 or 4 beefy double pumped FPU's, whcih would have greatly improved performance all they time rather than just when running SSE enhanced code?(<--this is coming from an E6400 user).

re: GetSystemTimes - couldn't you use NtQuerySystemInformation so that your code is more portable:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/sysinfo/base/ntquerys...nformation.asp

re: IAMExtDevice and IAMExtTransport - i looked over some of the documentation on these 2 direct show interfaces and all i have to say is "oh my". might i suggest you look at the source for dvgrab:

http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/man/man1/dvgrab.1.html

http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=14103

it may give you a couple of ideas that will allow your application to not have to rely on direct show all that much.

[mats.hogberg]

@deadrats & JohnnyMalaria: This is threadjacking. Stop your personal argument now. If you want to carry on your discussion (which is not at all related to the OP's q) - PM me, and I'll split your posts out to a separate thread.

/Mats

[FulciLives]

Well I mentioned earlier in the thread that one of the LCD 19" monitors that I was looking at was the LG L1970HR and it just happens to be on sale this week at BEST BUY for $289.99 so I have decided to buy it.

BEST BUY also has the PNY Verto VCG7300GXPB on sale this week for $99.99 and it looks like I may pick this up. It is a Nvidia GeForce 7300GT 256MB PCI-e video/graphics card. A bit less PIZAZZ than I was hoping but I think this will tide me over for now until DirectX 10 cards become more affordable. At the very least I will be able to finally play DOOM 3 which has been sitting un-played for nearly 2 years now because I refused to play it at 640x480 just to get a good FPS on it. More importantly this video/graphics card supports DVI so that will come in handy with the new monitor. My current video/graphics card does not have DVI out.

Anyways that is my plan. I just hope both (or at least the monitor) are in stock when I get to BEST BUY later this week.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[cdubya]

vista is the OS from hell on the lower end machines.. i highly suggest sitting on your cash for a year before switching to it...before then most of the major issues should be patched and more hardware will be out that is built around that environment