A little moan

thecremeegg · 30 Oct 2007 at 21:32

I know all this is not new, but i thought i'd say my piece as today was vista's last straw.
I've been using vista for a good few months now, both 32bit and 64bit as i thought it would be a good step up from XP in terms of gaming as it has the much awaited DX10
Why is it that EVERY game i play, and i mean EVERY game runs better in XP, an operating system thats been around years and is using old technology. Games that have been released in the past few months, and are supposedly DX10 run worse than in DX9?
I installed Crysis on XP today, near enough a 10FPS boost over both DX9 and DX10 modes in vista, thats really not on imo.
Fair enough im sure vista is in its infancy, but even now, 6 months after its release the people that have paid a lot of money for a supposedly better OS that will make their games run faster are yet to see what they parted with their money for.

taz488 · 30 Oct 2007 at 21:34

i agree the games should be at least as fast as xp.

thecremeegg · 30 Oct 2007 at 21:46

i dont think its too much to ask for a game like crysis, which fully implements (supposedly) DX10 to actually run better in vista on DX10 than in XP in DX9?

Streeteh · 30 Oct 2007 at 21:58

Also i don't seem to remember things like this when i upgraded to XP, nobody told me my FPS would be lower and i didn't notice anything like that. It had its flaws but in terms of performance it was a step ahead.

Features wise vista is a huge leap forward, its networking etc is a huge improvement. But in terms of actually utilizing hardware it seems to be a step backwards. Game publishers are even stating different system requirements for different operating systems now, with XP requiring less ram/cpu power.

I do like vista when games run well, however with things like crysis that cause my PC to struggle those extra 5/10 FPS make a huge difference.

ic1male · 30 Oct 2007 at 22:20

It's possibly not Vista but the drivers from nVidia / ATi. Remember they have had a good six years developing and tuning them for XP. Vista's architecture with DX10 and DX9 emulation has caused things to become "unoptimised" again.

Alexrose1uk · 30 Oct 2007 at 22:26

Actually this DID happen when XP came out, even if its so long ago now you've forgotten. Games like KOTOR when it came out on the PC DID have different recommended specs for running games on XP compared to '98 SE (ie 256mb vs 128mb RAM).

Part of the problem now is that we've had XP so long that we've forgotten the initial teething issues and programmes running slower when compared to 98 at the time. When it first came out, XP WAS more stable the 98 with decent drivers, but it was also slower. Seems people have forgotten that now we've had 6 years of getting used to it, and learning to optimise and tweak the OS.

Streeteh · 30 Oct 2007 at 22:31

Alexrose1uk said:
Actually this DID happen when XP came out, even if its so long ago now you've forgotten.

I imagined this was probably the case. I was only 16 when i first used it... come to think of it i probably didn't even have a clue what a driver was back then.

It'll all work out fine in the end, if Vista remains less efficient than XP forever, who will go for thier next OS? People will just assume it will require even better hardware to play games on it and i doubt MS would want that much. With the amount of money at their disposal, and the amount that they have riding on this i'm sure they would rather recode the whole thing and release a hell of a load of patches over the years instead of letting vista be known as inferior.

Alexrose1uk · 30 Oct 2007 at 22:36

It was, when 98SE was succeeded by XP, there were loads of teething issues, especially for people still using old DOS programmes. Also, lots of programmes and games ran slower, recommended system specs went up etc etc, basically just whats happening now with XP--->Vista happened with 98SE--->XP, I still remember gamers using 98SE over XP for a couple of years after XP came out, before the Service Packs and major tweaks started appearing, swearing that until they had to, they'd never move to 'that demonchild, xp', and people started to get used to it.
If you go and dig out old 2000-2002 PC games, I'd be surprised if a few of them at least don't mention 98/XP support, or differences between XP and 98 specs. Also if you look back, you can find reems of older sites with details on how to try and get DOS games running with XP's dodgy emulation - at the time, a lot of people still played games that really didn't run that well on XP.
In fact I still remember having loads of issues with Heavy Gear2 crashing after a certain mission on XP where it'd been fine on 98SE...but thats going back a few years now.

And most people completely ignored the middle, b**tard son of Microsoft, Windows ME! I'd imagine if 98SE had had better built in compatability and had been a bit more stable, it probably would have lasted much longer than XP has, for its time, 98SE was really rather good, it just got superseded with needed improvements in time.

Older games from that era often have compatability charts detailing whether they worked on XP, 98, 95 etc on the back, old sold out games are a good example of this. 98--->XP wasn't the dawn of wonders its made out to be made out nowadays, there were just as many teething issues as there is now with Vista, but Im sure, like XP, in time, Vista will become very useful and usable.

SS-89 · 30 Oct 2007 at 22:37

Actually Dx9 high Crysis runs better for me on vista than it does on xp :/

GhostlyPea · 30 Oct 2007 at 22:51

Custom PC magazine did a feature this month on Vista Vs. XP for games. Im not saying they did a 100% accurate test in anyway, but they only got a single game running faster on vista than in XP, it was stalker I think. no reason to move over

- Pea0n

Edit: Agreed Alexrose1uk - 98se was a damn fine OS

MeddlE · 30 Oct 2007 at 23:01

Personally ran Win2k after 98se, only switched to XP this year. Every new OS needs time to mature, Vista is no different. Give it a couple of years and it'll be fine.

thecremeegg · 30 Oct 2007 at 23:30

I appreciate that XP has had 6 years to work out the flaws, but i think that the leap from XP to vista is not as big as in previous years. Vista is great at networking as pointed out, but everything about its gaming architecture is slower, meaning there is no reason to shift over.

The problem is with vista only games that will no doubt begin appearing more frequently, and i'm not going to install an OS to play one game when all the rest run like poo on it.

As I said at the start it was just a little moan as at the moment i feel the money i spent on vista has been wasted

Alexrose1uk · 30 Oct 2007 at 23:36

thecremeegg said:
I appreciate that XP has had 6 years to work out the flaws, but i think that the leap from XP to vista is not as big as in previous years. Vista is great at networking as pointed out, but everything about its gaming architecture is slower, meaning there is no reason to shift over.

The problem is with vista only games that will no doubt begin appearing more frequently, and i'm not going to install an OS to play one game when all the rest run like poo on it.

As I said at the start it was just a little moan as at the moment i feel the money i spent on vista has been wasted

The thing is, almost exactly the same could be said 98SE--->XP, history is just repeating itself. XP was itself much slower in its gaming architecture when compared to 98SE, infact many people could probably attest XP only really came into it's own SP1/2.

paradigm · 30 Oct 2007 at 23:39

thecremeegg said:
I appreciate that XP has had 6 years to work out the flaws, but i think that the leap from XP to vista is not as big as in previous years.

I can tell you don't work in IT.

Windows 2000 > XP was about as small a jump as you could get, a slight refresh to the kernel and explorer's appearance, a few new ideas thrown in (skinned themes), and a better DirectX implementation.

Windows Vista is a completely new architecture, right down to the smallest detail, it may look like a facelifted XP, but its completely reworked from the ground up. New driver architectures, new HAL paths, more security blocks disabling devs from accessing low level resources directly, hell, its even got a completely different boot manager.

Give vista a few more months and I assure you, the bugs WILL iron out.

Everyone jumping on Vista's back really isn't giving it a chance tbh, its a far FAR superior OS in many MANY ways.

(And this is coming from someone who has to deal with it every hour of every day except for when asleep, ok, so at present it can't administer server 2003 properly, but it will do when the admin pack for server 2008 hits)

thecremeegg · 30 Oct 2007 at 23:59

paradigm said:
I can tell you don't work in IT.

Windows 2000 > XP was about as small a jump as you could get, a slight refresh to the kernel and explorer's appearance, a few new ideas thrown in (skinned themes), and a better DirectX implementation.

Windows Vista is a completely new architecture, right down to the smallest detail, it may look like a facelifted XP, but its completely reworked from the ground up. New driver architectures, new HAL paths, more security blocks disabling devs from accessing low level resources directly, hell, its even got a completely different boot manager.

Give vista a few more months and I assure you, the bugs WILL iron out.

Everyone jumping on Vista's back really isn't giving it a chance tbh, its a far FAR superior OS in many MANY ways.

(And this is coming from someone who has to deal with it every hour of every day except for when asleep, ok, so at present it can't administer server 2003 properly, but it will do when the admin pack for server 2008 hits)

Fair enough, but for the average user (myself) who buys it on the promise of gaming improvements, do you not agree that we have the right to feel aggreived?

Deks · 31 Oct 2007 at 00:03

thecremeegg said:
I know all this is not new, but i thought i'd say my piece as today was vista's last straw.
I've been using vista for a good few months now, both 32bit and 64bit as i thought it would be a good step up from XP in terms of gaming as it has the much awaited DX10
Why is it that EVERY game i play, and i mean EVERY game runs better in XP, an operating system thats been around years and is using old technology. Games that have been released in the past few months, and are supposedly DX10 run worse than in DX9?
I installed Crysis on XP today, near enough a 10FPS boost over both DX9 and DX10 modes in vista, thats really not on imo.
Fair enough im sure vista is in its infancy, but even now, 6 months after its release the people that have paid a lot of money for a supposedly better OS that will make their games run faster are yet to see what they parted with their money for.

Got to say I agree with thecremeegg (lol why did you come up with that name).

I am prob one of the oldest contributors here. I come from the zx80 days. Anyone remember the comodor pet ? LOL.

Anyway thru work ive ive been thru Dos (various incarnations)

Windows 3.0!! - Ack

Windows 3.11 - thank god they sorted it out the ultimate OS!

Windows 95 hmm

Windows 98 - flush it down the toilet

Windows 98se - hail, dos is dead at last the best OS in history

Win NT - Purely business OS . I guess this should be inserted above but wasnt really a home OS altho I used it at work at same time as above or prob before im old and cant remember

WinMe - cough splutter - Win 98 (see comments above)

Win XP - Hmm whats up with 98se

..
..
..
Win XP - guess waht the best OS in history ever!!

Vista - Overpriced, bloated OS , the most expensive ripoff in history, offers flip all ovr XP. (yes i bought it!!), What the hell have they done!! For gamers it offers no improvement IMHO. DX10 - lol what a joke.

Why the hell did they change things for the sake of it. Explorer in XP was near perfect. In Vista its 3 steps backwards I hate it. Why change something for the sake of it when it isnt broke?

So at the end of the day maybe Vista = Win me? Maybe they could have pushed th 64bit aspect of it but wait, erm apart from ultimate you dont even get 64bit in the box!!

Way to go Mr Bill (up your own **** Gates) Hope you are happy

Thanks for reading

Deks

cheets64 · 31 Oct 2007 at 00:11

When hardware drops in price and Vista SP 1 is out and I think someone will post the same question when the next MS OS is out.

paradigm · 31 Oct 2007 at 00:15

Deks said:
Garbage about random MS OS's

For someone who has worked with it as much as you say, you seem to know very little :/

ME was the first Home Class OS to do away with the DOS subsystem not 98, so quite how you can say "DOS is dead" with 98SE is beyond me.

NT4 came out in 1996 and was the forerunner to Windows 2000 which randomly you omitted entirely even though without it you would have had no windows XP at all.

No mention of Windows 3.1? Yet 3.11 was "the ultimate OS", a big workgroup user at home were you? :rolleyes:

NT 3.51, the birth of a legend quite possibly, 32-bit processing, a stable business platform, yet again no mention.

Next time you want to argue the toss about Operating Systems, at least ATTEMPT to get a clue first, and possibly back it up with some facts rather than just childish bickering, seriously, with language and arguments constructed in that manner I find it laughable that your profile says you are 41 :/

thecremeegg · 31 Oct 2007 at 00:43

Deks said:
Got to say I agree with thecremeegg (lol why did you come up with that name).

I love the damn things

But Paradigm, put yourself in joe public's shoes, and too an extent the minds of many users of OCuK, a lot of whom aren't as clued up as you are (myself included), can you not see where i'm coming from?
Sure it may be a huge leap forward under the surface, but its not showing on the surface - gaming performance is ultimately poor, and dont get me started on copying a file from one drive to another

- the leaps arent benefitting people currently.

Why couldnt microsoft put DX10 into XP and release Vista at a later when they could ensure that adequate driver support was available?

I just dont think its on that my new £200 piece of software is fundamentally worse for what i use it for, gaming, than a piece of software from the same company thats available for £40

Sorry for the moan but today really was the last straw, i had enough of not being able to use ATI tool properly and having my games suffer.

As a further note, you work with vista everyday, do you actually prefer it to XP, as a gamer and as a general user?

TheVoice · 31 Oct 2007 at 01:02

thecremeegg said:
Why couldnt microsoft put DX10 into XP and release Vista at a later when they could ensure that adequate driver support was available?

Because when all said and done, driver support isn't their fault. The developers had months to get decent drivers ready before Vista was released, and they've had months since to get them better. Personally, having used Vista since July, I think it's easily nearly par with XP in terms of stability and gaming performance. General performance seems superior to XP.

thecremeegg said:
As a further note, you work with vista everyday, do you actually prefer it to XP, as a gamer and as a general user?

Yep, without a doubt. My notebook only has XP, but I've been using it a lot over the past couple of weeks because I've been spending most of my time at the uni library. There's a number of times I've wished I had certain little features at hand that XP has, such as the search box on the start bar, and the various new features in Explorer.