Linked by Eugenia Loli-Queru on Mon 19th Nov 2007 08:01 UTC, submitted by Research Staff
Some testing by the exo.performance.network research staff shows that SP1 provides no measurable relief to users saddled with sub-par performance under Vista.
Thread beginning with comment 285641
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[12]: i'd like to see them repeat the tests
by gonzo on Wed 21st Nov 2007 03:32
in reply to "RE[11]: i'd like to see them repeat the tests"
Member since:2005-11-10
I knew you'd play the "games" card sooner or later. You're assuming I want to play games, and the games that I want to play require DirectX 10. Besides, you're deviating yet again from the real problem. Vista requires too much to do too little. There's no reason why Microsoft couldn't have developed DirectX 10 and then ported it to Vista. Instead, they have created yet another monopolistic lock-in to further reduce the customer's options, forcing them into something because of the little things, instead of the big picture.
Are you telling me if DX10 was available on Windows XP or 2000, you'd be running DX10 titles on your 4 years old computer? No, you would not. You can't.
RE[13]: i'd like to see them repeat the tests
by dreamlax on Wed 21st Nov 2007 04:17
in reply to "RE[12]: i'd like to see them repeat the tests"
Member since:2007-01-04
Are you telling me if DX10 was available on Windows XP or 2000, you'd be running DX10 titles on your 4 years old computer? No, you would not. You can't.
We're not talking about 4 year old computers now. I was simply showing that you don't need Vista or a grunty computer to do what you were doing.
What I'm telling you now is that if DirectX 10 was released for Windows XP officially, there would be absolutely no reason for anybody to upgrade to Vista. Once Microsoft stop development support for DirectX 9, they will essentially force game developers to use DirectX 10, and subsequently every XP gamer will be forced to upgrade.
Like I've said, I've compared two identical computers running XP and Vista. The amount of overhead that Vista introduces is huge; and the resources would be better put to use by applications rather than the operating system. Again, Vista requires too much to do too little.
Off topic a bit: I can understand benchmarking game performance on hardware, but why on earth should there be a tool to measure how well an operating system runs? It is the applications and games that should be demanding the latest hardware, not the operating system. The operating system should just be able to take advantage of the latest hardware, not demand it.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2007-01-04
Probably not, but an identical hardware setup running an OS other than Vista undoubtedly would. File operations on Vista are hopeless. It is actually faster for me to transfer data over a network on two non-Vista machines than it is to copy the same amount of data from one hard drive to another on Vista. I deal with multiple operating systems all the time. I am a Service Engineer for Toshiba and my job is to repair laptops. I have compared XP and Vista installations on identical laptops before, and the result of the comparison is undoubtedly clear, that I don't even need to declare the winner.
I knew you'd play the "games" card sooner or later. You're assuming I want to play games, and the games that I want to play require DirectX 10. Besides, you're deviating yet again from the real problem. Vista requires too much to do too little. There's no reason why Microsoft couldn't have developed DirectX 10 and then ported it to Vista. Instead, they have created yet another monopolistic lock-in to further reduce the customer's options, forcing them into something because of the little things, instead of the big picture.