Info: No longer a reason not to use vista when it comes to gaming

[Deluxe Pepe]

Originally Posted by aridash

Although the test machine is not bleeding edge, its certainly above average imo, and i wonder if there is a tipping point at which Vista runs better. try the test on a budget end or more common PC spec (ie a 18-24mth old) for a proper reflection.

I forgot to add, 18-24 months is very old for a PC expected to run the latest games.

Regardless, dual-cores were creeping into off-the-shelf home PCs by the end of 2006, and Vista was made for them IMO. Dual cores are now pretty much a standard.

I agree that Vista on a single core CPU is just disappointing.

[e-lite]

Uh what? Why wouldn't DX10 gfx cards work on XP? I run DX10 on my XP installation without any problem at all...

Originally Posted by Deluxe Pepe

Of course the lack of XP availability will trigger an upsurge in Vista uptake, but the OEM version will remain available until to 2010, and that's unrelated to the gaming point anyway. Many PC gamers pay a lot for their kit and try to stay on the cutting edge -- overclocking their processors, buying the latest graphics cards, etc) -- often for only marginal gains. How many are going to be happy buying DX10 compatible graphics cards when XP can't utilise many of their features.

So, gamers sticking to XP for two years? I don't see it.

If GTA IV for the PC utilises DX10 and is available around Sep/Oct this year as anticipated, I see mass gamer migration before the end of 2008. Many of them are already there of course.

[Etopia]

Originally Posted by e-lite

Uh what? Why wouldn't DX10 gfx cards work on XP? I run DX10 on my XP installation without any problem at all...

You mean the Alky version ?
Because M$ said directX X will be only on vista...
Som rumor say directX L would be on XP to make it compatible vista , som other say the L is for make vista compatible with 9.0c ...

[MonkeyCreamy]

Vista owns if u turn all the stupid areo off. I had vista come default on my laptop and im lovin it. I turn all the transparency off so its just a black bar and everything is very good. No desktop lag, no problems. Runs like a dream. And DX10 is nice. So far I have no complains with it. I just think people are afraid of change, same thing when XP came out, everyone said oMFG, Win98 is way better, then a year or so later everyone is clutching it saying XP is way better.

[LeOoX]

hahaha that video is so funny

[e-lite]

Originally Posted by Etopia

You mean the Alky version ?
Because M$ said directX X will be only on vista...
Som rumor say directX L would be on XP to make it compatible vista , som other say the L is for make vista compatible with 9.0c ...

Yeah the alky. Sure it's some hacking, but it works good.

[Dion Red Strike]

Originally Posted by sob

people always complain about new operating systems. i can remember it was the way when xp and windows 2000 came out (not to mention Windows ME lol).

Heh... it took me years to install win 3.1.... and a mouse at the time seemed silly.... bad MS ripping off Apples ideas... and it wasn't even an integrated OS... Then to upgrade from win 3.1 to 98... meh, took me years again... then 98 to ME, then back to 98, then to 2000 (in 2002)... then, many years later, XP (my server still runs 2k).... maybe 2005ish.... now Vista... meh... I upgraded last week...

Yes, people complain, and hold off upgrades to new OS's everytime....

[Etopia]

Originally Posted by e-lite

Yeah the alky. Sure it's some hacking, but it works good.

Does it improve EU ?
XP 32 or 64 , sp2 or 3 ?

[SeamusO]

Originally Posted by Nor Alien

Pass... If I wanted to slow down my comp to half its speed.... sure install vista... LOL Even if you had the latest in hardware, it still takes up massive amounts of system resources for its eye candy.... Bloated!!!!??? LOL Theres talk about abandoning vista altogether... and sales are still no-where near that of XP's when it first came out.. although the choices at that time where upgrade to XP or stay with 98!! lol Oh well I guess I'll wait to see what the new sp1 and further updates bring to the table before I make the final jump!!

Nice to know that they're looking into these problems... Maybe there's hope after all!! Thanks also for posting this update

Not true .. Half speed? The only bad theing about vista SP1 is that it slowed down vista enough to remove it from the top spots ..

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1772

XP Professional:

    * XP RTM
      PassMark rating: 1001.4
    * XP SP2
      PassMark rating: 891
    * XP SP3
      PassMark rating: 990.8

Vista 32-bit:

    * Vista RTM
      PassMark rating: 1002.4
    * Vista SP1
      PassMark rating: 972.3

Vista 64-bit:

    * Vista RTM
      PassMark rating: 1183.1
    * Vista SP1
      PassMark rating: 1128.8

you'll notice that Vista scores higher until vista sp1 is installed. The top 3 spots in the passmark test were the RTM versions of vista ..

The only real issue with vista remains the lack of support due to lack of adoption. I use Vista x64, but even now, when I build a system for someone, if it's a 3GB ram or less setup, I still push them into XP.

I think the biggest issue has been the hardware requirements. Vista needs a lot, but if you feed it, it works well.

[Deluxe Pepe]

Originally Posted by e-lite

Uh what? Why wouldn't DX10 gfx cards work on XP? I run DX10 on my XP installation without any problem at all...

If you are using the Alky libraries (which are essentially a bunch of proxies sitting between the game and DirectX, translating and forwarding API calls), you are not running DX 10 *natively* so there is a degradation in performance.

If performance is your aim, then I'd consider that a problem.

Certainly DX10 (native) on Vista will run games faster than DX10 (with Alky) on XP. Brian Thompson (the developer) hoped to address this problem, but Alky was discontinued in January so it remains.