In a recent review in a PC magazine, it stated that dedicated gamers would
prefer Ultimate. Why? What does Ultimate have for gamers that Home Premium
doesn't have?



Thank you.

What was PC Magazine's reasoning? If they did not answer their own
assertion or offer a rationale, the question is moot.

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows Shell/User

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

"pc nerd" <pcnerd@xxxxxx> wrote in message news:7120F0EA-AB91-44CD-8E33-EBE411B1BC72@xxxxxx
In a recent review in a PC magazine, it stated that dedicated gamers would
prefer Ultimate. Why? What does Ultimate have for gamers that Home Premium
doesn't have?

Thank you.

I don't know why, since all the Vista SKUs from Home Basic to Ultimate
support DirectX 10. It includes more built in Games than Home Basic though.
But its no different when it comes to support, any Vista designed or
compatible games works on all editions of the OS.
--
Andre
Blog: http://adacosta.spaces.live.com
My Vista Quickstart Guide:
http://adacosta.spaces.live.com/blog...3DB!9709.entry
"pc nerd" <pcnerd@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:7120F0EA-AB91-44CD-8E33-EBE411B1BC72@xxxxxx

> In a recent review in a PC magazine, it stated that dedicated gamers would
> prefer Ultimate. Why? What does Ultimate have for gamers that Home Premium
> doesn't have?
>
> Thank you.

Do you have a link for that article or is it only paper?
What issue and page?
There is no reason that I know why gamers need Ultimate when Home
Premium will do just as well.
Did the article give any reasons?
If not, that sounds like an ignorant writer trying to get a story out
without verifying facts.

Some gamers do more than play games and for those Ultimate may be
better.
But without more information, I would tend to ignore the writer and
suggest gamers go with Home Premium unless they need some of the
Ultimate features that add nothing to the gaming experience.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org


"pc nerd" <pcnerd@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:7120F0EA-AB91-44CD-8E33-EBE411B1BC72@xxxxxx

> In a recent review in a PC magazine, it stated that dedicated gamers
> would
> prefer Ultimate. Why? What does Ultimate have for gamers that Home
> Premium
> doesn't have?
>
> Thank you.

I can't remember if it was PC World or PC Magazine. I was in the county
library recently & I browsed thru PC World & PC Magazine. I have read that
extra games are available for Ultimate that basically replace Plus!

"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" wrote:

> Do you have a link for that article or is it only paper?
> What issue and page?
> There is no reason that I know why gamers need Ultimate when Home
> Premium will do just as well.
> Did the article give any reasons?
> If not, that sounds like an ignorant writer trying to get a story out
> without verifying facts.
>
> Some gamers do more than play games and for those Ultimate may be
> better.
> But without more information, I would tend to ignore the writer and
> suggest gamers go with Home Premium unless they need some of the
> Ultimate features that add nothing to the gaming experience.
>
> --
> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
> http://www.dts-l.org
>
>
> "pc nerd" <pcnerd@xxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:7120F0EA-AB91-44CD-8E33-EBE411B1BC72@xxxxxx

> > In a recent review in a PC magazine, it stated that dedicated gamers
> > would
> > prefer Ultimate. Why? What does Ultimate have for gamers that Home
> > Premium
> > doesn't have?
> >
> > Thank you.

>
>

I play alot of games and do alot of media stuff. I went with the Home Premium 64bit version. I was not aware that the Ultimate was better for games also a first to hear this. I want to look into this, I would think all 64bit os would do the same .

Both Home Premium and Ultimate are the same product, just that one has more
features in this case all the features of Home Premium and all the features
of Vista Enterprise. Ultimate is for users who work in multi-mode
environments and would like get the best of both worlds. That's why its
called the no compromise Windows.
--
Best regards,
Andre Da Costa
http://adacosta.spaces.live.com

"FBL" <guest@xxxxxx-email.com> wrote in message
news:9f3195d3f5bedb08f77da19b043c5f89@xxxxxx-gateway.com...

>
> I play alot of games and do alot of media stuff. I went with the Home
> Premium 64bit version. I was not aware that the Ultimate was better for
> games also a first to hear this. I want to look into this, I would think
> all 64bit os would do the same .
>
>
> --
> FBL

Rick Rogers <rick@xxxxxx> wrote:

>
> Can't think of any real reason to use x64 over 32-bit yet either, as
> games currently on the market don't use memory addresses above the 4GB
> mark

There are loads of games that run natively on 64-bit.

ss.

Rick Rogers <rick@xxxxxx> wrote:

<top-posting macro corrected>

>>> Can't think of any real reason to use x64 over 32-bit yet either, as
>>> games currently on the market don't use memory addresses above the 4GB
>>> mark

>>
>>
>> There are loads of games that run natively on 64-bit.

>
> Run, yes. Absolutely unless they contain and rely on a 32-bit device
> driver.

No I said, "run natively on 64-bit". It's a commonly used term in this
context, but it does not seem that you understand what it means.

> Make use of memory at addresses above the 4GB mark? No. If it's a 32-bit
> application, the code has to load into the lower 4GB to run, regardless
> of how much is available.

As I said, there are loads of native 64-bit games available, and there will
be many more.

I am not much into gaming, but we all benefit from the gaming industry. If
it was not for gamers buying the latest hardware, the CAD industry would be
paying far more money for workstation OpenGL graphics cards. These days,
high-end CAD workstations are based on normal PC hardware. In fact, the
gaming industry will most probably be mostly responsible for 64-bit Windows
achieving critical mass before anything else.

ss.