Hmm amd says no mantle to vista lol

Then it is modded lol

 

well if they wanted to really block ways to install this driver on systems they say are not supported .. i think they would do better than they've done lol .. and even if you own GCN graphic card - seems vista got issues with mantle api itself .. well .. to sum it up that's pretty obvious that newest amd drivers should work in all os since vista, cause they all use wddm 1.1 and up .. so in that part i see no issues for newest driver to work in w8 wddm 1.2 mode which is half a step from wddm 1.1 to 1.3 not to be said about mantle api itself which seems to have trouble with user32.dll in vista .. and might have trouble with more system dll's but as you mentioned .. well no one uses vista anyways .. so its just for complete test rather than anything else

 

I don't wanna be that guy but,

Support should have been dropped faster for Vista than xp.
And anybody who tries to game seriously on Vista should consider changing.

 

Vista is more of an intermediary transition between XP to 7, best to install Windows 7 on your machine.

It does feel like being forced, but almost everyone switched over to Windows 7 when it was available (from Vista) and Windows 7 is indeed better on every front.

Instead of trying to acknowledge that there is no Mantle Support on Vista, best to switch over Windows 7.

 

lol might as well switch to 8.1 with a start menu replacement if going to re install...win 7 is old news as well

 

No not really, windows 8 was mediocre for most games and 8.1 runs okay.
Needs about another year or two before windows 7 users start to decrease.

 

blah blah blah vista hate, but XP is worse! no dx10, no security, no aero, no modern software or drivers, the list goes on... yet people have the nerve to say vista is so bad?

it's like nobody's even using the OS except fox with his supposed performance comparison

some of us need a working vista installation due to the spiderweb of apps/plugins/etc installed (not that i've been using it, still havent replaced the dead 4870x2, i sure hope they release a vista driver for the 285x...)

anyway, about OP's tricks, it doesnt matter if you got things to show up in CCC, does the mantle star swarm demo or thief or battlefield run in mantle mode on vista? although you cant really test with that non GCN gpu

about the amd blocks, that's what 'not supported' means, it's not necessarily going to fail to install if you force it, it's just not officially supposed to work & they're not responsible for changes they make that only work on win7 or 8 for example, they're also most certainly not going to be working on development to get it anything to work on an unsupported platform or gpu

back in the day, i forced fable to run on a geforce2 using 3danalyze, it's most certainly not supported since it's not a dx9 capable card, but the game did manage to load although with some missing objects

i'm all for hacking up your own frankenstein driver as needed until new dlls simply stop working, so keep playing around, maybe one day i will get my replacement card & try to force mantle on GCN in vista

EDIT: this is an enthusiast forum right? one of the points of DIY could be 'because i can', so why do so many people want to blindly regurgitate some talk without solid comparisons?

recently someone put doom on a printer! if that can happen, then we can poke around old OSs, it's not about getting the most fps (that's what OC'ing & another partition are for)

 

Let me fix it for you:

At time Vista came average user did have barely enough ram to run that pile of bad code, yet play games on it.
Each freaking edition had completely different control panel and 1/2 of them had usage critical features locked out.
Like freaking NTFS ownership, therefore some of people had no access to their files after upgrade.
Or advanced file sharing+user management on network. Here even windows 95 had better solution than those crippled editions.

Back then I spent hours and hours helping people around to get their business software working on that.

As far as DX 10 is considered, there were no games which would not have DX9 alternative till Win7 and DX10 was Microsoft's mistake anyway so DX11 returned pretty close to DX9.
(that means maintaining code/knowledge for project with DX9+11 is much easier than to have DX9+10 or DX10+11, and that is reason why there were so few DX10 games)

If we omit Win Me ability to crash, Vista was by far worst OS M$ made because getting new installation of Win Me to work (or just recover snapshot from another partition) took fraction of time in comparison to solving banal things on Vista.

 

no, let me fix it again

how is that relevant for those with 4gb or more? how about the service packs that came out? & being on the higher end editions meant you werent crippled, unlike XP home edition that wont let you look at simple ntfs permissions under a normal boot

vista may be a disaster in corporate environments or low end hardware, but this is guru3d & it sounded like OP was interested in gaming

i started my vista usage in september 2008, so i didnt see those early driver issues first hand, but we cant expect a new OS at its time in 2006 to go smoothly (especially one with such big changes, btw we still have games that WONT work on windows 8 yet are fine in xp/vista/7)

i like that you gave some first hand experience, that's all i want to hear... because my first hand experience with a 4870x2 & various games was quite fine, yet other people (not you) blindly hate vista without any data to back it up just like the ones that blindly camp out for iphones

 

It's misleading to just say there have been few DX10 games. Many games supporting DX11 had a fallback path for DX10 GPUs.

The DX11 API is backwards compatible with DX10/10.1 and DX9 GPUs.

 

Just so you know how reality looked from 2007 (Vista release January):
http://techtalk.pcpitstop.com/2008/04/24/average-installed-memory-vista-vs-xp/



If you look at graph then you can realize few things:
- XP with 1GB of RAM were running perfectly and had a lot of free resources for applications.
- Vista systems had to be shipped from start with 1.5GB RAM and more, because this OS would choke on itself
- Amount of RAM in systems went due to Vista UP very fast, because people simply had to buy it for daily use
- that brought RAM prices down so much that even XP user which had no need to upgrade did, just because it was cheap

Here is price index of memories (2nd column shows price/MB):
http://www.jcmit.com/memoryprice.htm
It took 4 years to halve price per MB from 2002 to 2006.
And in year 2007 alone price per MB went to one third.
This trend slow down only a bit in 2008 reducing priced per MB again by half in this year.
Then for another half price cut it took from 2009 to 2012 as market had what it needed. (and price went down only due to too many companies making memories and price war)
Now price per MB is around year 2011 where they would stay if there were no unhealthy high competition.

And if you got Vista on September 2008, then Windows 7 came in October 2009.
That is only 13 months, so I understand you did not want to buy another OS. But since W7 came another 59 months have passed.

 

Maybe you misunderstood
I meant there were very few games on DX10. And I think you would have hard time to find game which was DX10 only therefore cutting support for WinXP.
That actually happen long after W7 release and those few games were DX11 anyway.
There was never need for DX10 nor it was ever considered as cutting edge.

 

what i'm saying is that vista on 4gb in 2008 was hardly problematic & in a lot of cases, dx10 versions of games ran smoother than dx9

plus i was 64bit, what i really liked was how 32bit apps transparently ran just fine! i know this was first done in XP64 but still, vista was a 'consumer' OS that pushed 64bit+more ram pretty rapidly onto users (OSX is doing the same after it dropped 32bit)

for xp, 1gb was enough... although not so much anymore with today's browsers & websites when you open lots of tabs (on top of that, sometimes you might have to open photoshop to edit some papers you scanned)

on my xp, i moved to 2gb from 1gb in 2007 due to BF2142's titan mode swapping to disk since the map was so huge

if OEMs & offices kept using old parts or reduced ram, well that's unfortunate... along with the early driver issues or companies not updating (or going bankrupt like abit)

so to me, vista with enough ram & after the service packs is hardly the worst OS, but i'm also not denying that it had the worst launch or that it has steeper hardware requirements

vista to 7 is a borderline sidegrade, but xp to anything newer is quite a huge leap, THIS is what bugs me about all those 'lol you should burn vista & install 7' people on the internet