More specifically:

I have the luxury (for once!) of paying someone else to build my own rig. I'm going with something from Cyberpower probably, water-cooled, oc'd, all mod cons.

Anyway, I'm champing at the bit to order it, but I'm wondering if I should wait for Windows 7 to come out as opposed to the option I have now, which is buy the rig with Vista Bidness 64, and get the free coupon for an updgrade to it's Win 7 equivalent.

I'm pretty computer savvy (for a non-professional), built about 6 systems, etc., so I doubt the upgrade would be a big deal. But would it effect the OC' I'm paying for (about 20%), etc.

Basically I want you all to tell me if I should do the obvious prudent thing and hold off until late October. Plus those news ATI and NVIDIA cards are a' comin'.

Is delayed gratification mandatory here fellahs?

d.

With all the new goodness breaking, I'd wait for Windows 7. Everything I've heard says it's superior to Vista in every way. I'll be an early adopter.

pfunk

I'll do it easier, but not an option if you want it pre-install: I have already a Win7 Ultimate 64bit in hand (from a MSDN/Technet Subscriper Friend) which should be possible to activate using normal OEM key I can buy later. Until then, there is a perfectly legal built-in console command to push back the activation for a total of 120 days.

So basically - install now, activate later.

If you can't/won't do that route, then by all means wait. "Upgrading" Vista can never be so clean as a fresh install, and if you end up doing a fresh install in a month that's serious extra work. Makes zero sense to buy Vista preinstalled a month before W7 hits.

Currently, I have a triple boot -- Windows 7 RC, Vista HP, Windows XP Pro.

They all work. But, Windows XP lacks some convenience, Vista has a couple foibles, Windows 7 seems to do everything well. I have two copies of Windows 7 HP upgrade edition on pre-order.

A month from now, older graphics card and older CPU prices should have dropped some -- due to the HD5870 (arriving today they say) and Intel i5 (already on sale).

So, I'd wait.

Wait....

Its only a few more weeks

i have the beta and like it

I'm dual booting it and it's OK. Really seems to be faster than XP.

Damn that delayed gratification. Kind of a kid in a candy store as this is the first time someone else has to connect those tiny ass wires from the mother board to the those microscopic, poorly labeled inputs on the case. And maybe one or two things a bit more involved. Water cooled OC burned in and guaranteed (if Cyberpower is to be trusted) and here's what geek I am--- I'm paying for the blue neon inside (9 bucks- c'mon) and one or two other bells and whistles. Might mention that I'm closer to 40 than fourteen and I have a 4 year old daughter. My one toy...

Anyway, you guys are dead right. As RSCOLONEL says, makes zero sense. Agreed. I'd just be doing a fresh install of Win 7 a few weeks later, which would probably also mean tweaking the OC and ram timings and all kinds of stuff I'd like to skip this time.

So I'll opt for the Win 7 equivalent to Vista Bidness (has what I need minus the fluff I don't use).

Two quick ones:

6 Gigs ram enough? (I think so but just checking and yes, there's a spare expansion slot for down the road). Getting high end stuff--- have to with the CPU OC.

I'm going with the 64 bit version of Win 7. Any cautions there? (I can deal with a few short term hickups).

Cheers and sincere, sincere Thanks!

d.

PS> Allen, good point on the new ATI release of the HD5870. You think NVIDIA's forthcoming (farther off I think) card is likely to beat it? I don't care about marginal performance advantages and I still think ATI's got the picture quality advantage.

Nvidia always pulls out all the "stops" to "beat" ATI -- because their corporate selling point is that they are the fastest. Some of the "stops" they pull involve questionable engineering and can be a bit underhanded at times. And, they do influence most game developers to optimize for Nvidia via TWIMTBP (as Nvidia spokepersons have indicated). So, I expect them to be faster -- by hook or by crook.

I guess we have to wait and see how much faster -- I'm guessing not visibly faster.

On the other hand ATI has had all the DX11 features running since the HD2900. Most DX11 features were supposed to be in DX10. However, Nvidia could not get them running right and prevailed upon Microsoft to remove them from DX10. Also, ATI has had tessellation (a key DX11 feature) for even longer (it was in the R8500 which I owned).

So, some ATI-leaning reviewers are guessing that the ATI implementation of DX11 will be more complete and less prone to bugs and driver issues. They are guessing it will actually be faster than Nvidia. But, I still think Nvidia will not "allow" that.

On Nvidia's side, the GTX300 may have some advantages in areas other than graphics. For example, Physx and parallel processing.

Rumors are that the GTX300 will be delayed into next year and the lower tech 3xx parts will be renamed 2xx parts. Nvidia denies the rumors and says it has a card running. If so, we'll see it soon in articles, I presume. If we don't see it soon, I am guessing it is not running well enough. But, we'll see.

All that to say, I feel confident ATI will narrowly win this round on overall quality, performance, price, and performance/price and timely release. But, probably, Nvidia will have the fastest FPS part -- by a small margin (good, it will keep the price of ATI cards low and more affordable to me -- competition is good). BTW, look out for Nvidia being faster in older games and benchmarks which is what everyone will be using to measure -- but no better in DX11. Again, we'll see.

Allen - and this is not a rhetorical question I've seen what you're talking about first hand--- do you think that NVIDIA has the kind of pull to actually ask that Microsoft d/c features from DX10. Amazing, but not hard to believe given the history here (and I mean Netscape--- not picking on NVIDIA).

What is Microsoft's stake in NVIDIA being the dominant card?

On the we'll see front, the dual GPU version of the HD4870 seems worth holding out for given the feature base of it's single GPU predecessor. I'm now waiting for November. Delayed gratification skills training or another G*ddamn teachable moment I suppose.

d.

Yes.

Microsoft depends on partnerships with the chief hardware manufacturers. They all work together to get Windows and the hardware working together in a way to make everyone look good and make maximum profit. As an aside, Vista suffered because that partnership did not do its job -- many drivers for existing hardware (of all sorts) were late or never came.

Microsoft dreams up a new OS with new features. But, then it has to sell the new ideas to the big hardware companies -- to get them to spend money to develop hardware supporting the new OS features. The second and third tier hardware companies simply have to keep up with the "big boys".

With Vista, ATI worked closely with Microsoft -- but ATI is second tier to Microsoft. Intel is the big CPU and GPU fish (nearly all the cheap PCs use Intel on board graphics -- which is crummy -- but it gives Intel the lead in GPU sales). Nvidia is also a big GPU fish. Intel and Nvidia resisted a bit. So, Microsoft had to compromise with them. Along the way Microsoft cut Nvidia a lot of DX10 GPU slack and Intel also (the Intel move has lead to a class action suit because so called "Vista Capable" Intel on-board GPU hardware supported Vista so poorly).

Intel Vista Capable Mess -- Memo Leaks

The article indicates how the "big boys" can push Microsoft around -- and how Microsoft allows itself to be pushed to increase its own profits (at the expense of the mislead Customers, of course).

Shenanigans are not unique to any one company. We've noted here that Nvidia often renames older parts and sells them to the unwary as new product. Some people have probably bought the same Nvidia GPU 3 times -- each time thinking they were upgrading.