|
|
User Controls
|
New User
|
Login
|
Edit/View My Profile
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac
|
Articles
|
Forums
|
Links
|
News
|
News Search
|
Reviews
|
|
|
|
News Centers
|
Windows/Microsoft
|
DVD
|
ActiveHardware
|
Xbox
|
MaINTosh
|
News Search
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats
|
The Lobby
|
Special Events Room
|
Developer's Lounge
|
XBox Chat
|
|
|
|
FAQ's
|
Windows 98/98 SE
|
Windows 2000
|
Windows Me
|
Windows "Whistler" XP
|
Windows CE
|
Internet Explorer 6
|
Internet Explorer 5
|
Xbox
|
DirectX
|
DVD's
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips
|
Registry Tips
|
Windows 95/98
|
Windows 2000
|
Internet Explorer 4
|
Internet Explorer 5
|
Windows NT Tips
|
Program Tips
|
Easter Eggs
|
Hardware
|
DVD
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews
|
Applications
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002
|
|
Hardware
|
Intel Personal Audio Player
3000
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse
Explorer
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info
|
About This Site
|
Affiliates
|
ANet Forums
|
Contact Us
|
Default Home Page
|
Link To Us
|
Links
|
Member Pages
|
Site Search
|
Awards
|
|
|
|
Credits
©1997/2004, Active Network. All
Rights Reserved.
Layout & Design by
Designer Dream. Content
written by the Active Network team. Please click
here for full terms of
use and restrictions or read our
Privacy Statement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time:
12:57 EST/17:57 GMT | News Source:
ExtremeTech |
Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum |
Even as Microsoft tries to shove Windows Vista down the collective and unwilling throat of computer users worldwide, the company is still perfecting the well-aged and well-loved Windows XP . The latter of the two operating systems just received its third (and evidently last) service pack.
The collection of fixes and improvements includes the vast majority of security and performance updates, patches, and other stuff released in the two plus years SP2 was released. It also includes a few new improvements. There's little in SP3 that the user will actually see; pretty much everything the service pack packs is background stuff.
Of course, with the release of a new service pack comes a huge, pressing question: How does it compare to Windows Vista and its own recent update, Service Pack 1, in the game performance department? Vista, of course, has been plagued by criticism that games run on it don't perform as well as they do in Windows XP, even though most of the problems were due to early graphics drivers and have gradually been worked out.
Come with us as we install XP SP3 and take it for a test drive, and more importantly compare it to Vista SP1 with a batch of performance tests. Though DirectX 10 is Vista-only, many a gamer has sworn not to upgrade; will XP SP3 cement their decision, or has Vista and its drivers matured enough to change a few minds?
|
|
#1 By
7754 (206.169.247.2)
at
5/13/2008 2:18:19 PM
|
"the well-aged and well-loved Windows XP"
Hilarious. Before, everyone used to bash XP, now it's everyone's favorite.
"If you were expecting a huge drop in performance as your eyes scanned from the XP to the Vista results, well, surprise! As many a tech analyst predicted, Windows Vista's gaming performance conundrum has largely been solved, and it was mainly due to early graphics drivers."
In other words, what many folks here (opposite Latch, et al) have been saying was right all along (not sure who those "tech analysts" were that made those predictions, but anyhow...).
|
#2 By
15406 (216.191.227.68)
at
5/13/2008 3:14:40 PM
|
#1: Close, but not quite. In the early days of Vista, various AW microbots were denying there was any issue at all. Now that the drivers have improved, the line has changed from 'no problems with Vista' to 'problems with Vista were bad drivers'. I've read several benchmarks that are pegging Vista as equivalent to XP's performance and I'm prepared to accept that Vista has gotten better with time. It would have been interesting to see the same benchmarks with only 1 GB of RAM.
What's so freakin' ironic about all of this was how, according to various AW people, lack of good drivers for Linux was always the fault of Linux itself, but when it comes to Vista's driver woes, it's the fault of everyone but Microsoft.
|
#3 By
3653 (65.80.181.153)
at
5/13/2008 4:40:21 PM
|
its common knowledge, that when latch forgets the creme... he blames Juan Valdez.
|
#4 By
7754 (206.169.247.2)
at
5/13/2008 5:47:10 PM
|
#2, don't confuse Parkkkker with the rest of us. For example, I think if you look at lketchum's posts, he would mention the specific hardware he was using (high quality gear and setup) and the results he was seeing. The drivers for Vista were of varying quality at the start--some were fine, some sucked (nVidia). Most people here acknowledged the gaming performance differential (even Microsoft said to expect a 10% difference at the start, IIRC), though it varied from benchmark to benchmark, and in most cases didn't make a game unplayable. At any rate, those that continue to pound the "Vista's performance sucks" drum should play a different beat--though I'm quite sure they won't, regardless of the evidence.
I don't think I've been involved in the Linux drivers = Linux fault discussions, but there is some merit to that argument--there is a lot of controversy over whether or not to accept non-GPL code in drivers, and that is a Linux ideological/licensing issue.
|
#5 By
15406 (99.224.112.94)
at
5/13/2008 7:18:47 PM
|
#4: One thing that I read once, somewhere, was that during the Vista dev cycle, MS significantly changed the driver model about a year before release (which was entirely within their rights to do so), and this supposedly caught a lot of hardware vendors by surprise. If this story was true (and I can't remember where the heck I read it), that might explain why there was such a driver problem at Vista launch when everyone thought the vendors had many years to get their act together. I'm not a Vista driver dev so I have no idea if this theory was a clanker or not.
|
#6 By
3746 (72.12.161.38)
at
5/13/2008 7:47:09 PM
|
Why is this surprising in the least. Drivers for XP had 6 years to mature. Vista drivers were not a priority until a significant market share had been reached. The same issues occurred when XP was released. I remember gamers saying they would never switch from 98 because it was faster. How many of those gamers are still running 98?
|
#7 By
20505 (216.102.144.11)
at
5/13/2008 9:25:03 PM
|
Based on my experience with several new games on Vista, the least of a PC gamers problem is the issue of "slow performance".
Stability has become a huge issue. I cannot recall a recent PC game that ran on my very standard PC without big hiccups. To mention a few... The Witcher, Bioshock, Gears of War, and Assassins Creed. I've spent hours on various forums to figure out how to get them to run properly.
The newest issue seems to be related to copy protection schemes.
Sigh, I think the gaming problem will eventually resolve itself as all new games migrate to consoles and leave the PC behind.
Prediction - This will be bad for MS/Intel/NVIDIA and good for Linux/Apple.
|
#8 By
23275 (68.186.182.236)
at
5/14/2008 2:17:42 AM
|
Windows Vista Home Basic - Why GDI+ Persists - see, http://blog.libertech.net/blogs/lketchum/archive/2007/05/25/windows-vista-home-basic-why-gdi-persists.aspx
A year before the story and the truth broke, I wrote the above highly speculative article after having been intrigued by what I saw in Windows Vista graphics drivers and the variances in the application of the new driver model. ALL drivers use and benefit from the WDDM; however, where shader model 2.0 or better capable hardware is used, far better performance is achieved with Aero turned on.
As the article explained and was later proven to be accurate, one graphics chip supplier forced not only the difference in Vista SKU's, but also the use of older technologies and an entire new UI version - that found in Windows Vista Home Basic, which is actually a pretty good UI and vastly better than premium SKU's Windows Basic UI mode.
We had tested many dozens of variations and drivers as we certified and selected our hardware [providing great experiences is not alchemy, or even rocket science - it does take placing the user and what they experience ahead of all else - even profits].
It became clear to me that one GPU manufacturer was really messing the entire launch up and further, neither nvidia, or ATI/AMD actually believed that Vista would ship when it did. They all started off late and all of them stumbled. Only when "mass" was achieved did more advanced drivers emerge - with one key exception: "m" versions of discrete graphics drivers, which are largely OEM specific (they are simply dreadful - to this day).
GPU driver dev is very, very, very complex - add another very and a couple more for good measure. Under Vista it has been greatly eased (for those that understand things, they will know by how wide a margin this is true).
Oh.. you cannot believe how often that article is read, or how often I get asked how I knew... I can tell you that NO ONE even hinted to me what was going on and that buckets of sweat were shed trying to design systems that would make Vista not only run, but run perfectly. "seeing" what was going on took a great deal of work and testing. As I said, it is not alchemy, or rocket science, but there is a lot of work that a good builder will invest BEFORE they ship a system. With that discipline it was and is possible to ship computers that make Vista run and look great. By the way, Vista WDDM GPU scheduler is gorgeous! When leveraged properly, it is possible to make Vista and apps/games for it look so good and so smooth that it can take your breath away. Having solved some very serious mobile discrete graphics issues for two large OEM's we are about to ship a review system to Byron for eval. I cannot tell you easily just how hard it has been to get our industry moving, or how hard we had to work to stitch our own drivers/INF's together... the mobile GPU drivers have been that bad and nvidia has placed zero emphasis on this market segment and AMD seems to have given up entirely. By H2 09 Intel will have about killed them both! Ironic, huh? Since it was Intel that set the entire stage for this mess.... Sorry to ramble...
|
#9 By
3746 (72.12.161.38)
at
5/14/2008 7:20:53 AM
|
#7
I have played all the way through Portal and Half Life 2:EP2 on my Vista system without 1 crash. I jump on team fortress and have played quite a few hours since it was released without a crash. I also played through Bioshock (bought over steam) and played it all the way through without issue. Vista has been a more stable gaming platform then XP ever was for me.
|
#10 By
15406 (216.191.227.68)
at
5/14/2008 7:56:51 AM
|
#9: Tell me, is there more to HL2:EP2 than ant-lions, ant-lions and more ant-lions?
|
#11 By
2960 (72.196.195.185)
at
5/14/2008 8:49:59 AM
|
"Hilarious. Before, everyone used to bash XP, now it's everyone's favorite."
Well, when you step off the crumbling, stained driveway on to the grass and into a pile of steaming dog poop, the old driveway don't look so bad no more :)
TL
|
|
|
|
|