|
|
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:
11:52 EST/16:52 GMT | News Source:
ZDNet |
Posted By: Robert Stein |
Sorry for the exclamation point in the headline, but my inner media critic, who is taking over for the second half of this post, insisted on it. It’s there for a reason, which I’ll get to shortly, I promise. [Update: My inner media critic is laughing out loud at the people who completely missed this reference and posted TalkBack comments complaining about the headline. “See,” he says, “you should have used FOUR exclamation points. Then maybe they would have figured out the headline was deliberately sensational, to make a point about how important headlines and opening pages are to media coverage.”]
Our technical press, like the mainstream media, sometimes has a hard time letting go of an idea it’s been pushing. That’s true even when new facts show that the old story wasn’t, strictly speaking, accurate. Or when facts on the ground have changed and maybe it’s time to alert your readers to the new realities.
Today’s case in point: I just got through reading ExtremeTech’s recent lab-based head-to-head comparison of gaming performance in Windows Vista SP1 and XP SP3. The conclusion was quite a surprise.
|
|
#2 By
2332 (66.92.78.241)
at
5/29/2008 12:14:41 PM
|
#1 - While I agree that it, for the most part, doesn't "scream" past XP, it does do better on virtually every test, with the greatest difference between more than 16%.
In other words, Vista SP1 is FASTER than XP SP2 or XP SP3.
Since people are constantly claiming that Vista is slower than XP, the headline was justified.
In addition, most people who read ExtremeTech are people obsessed with every FPS they can squeeze out of their machines. They spend hours tweaking BIOS settings, downloading hacked drivers, and spending insane cash on special ram that can be over clocked.
The revelation that Vista SP1 will gain them 2 FPS is more than enough to get them to switch. If you doubt this, you're probably not part of these hobbiest communities.
|
#3 By
89153 (75.157.154.187)
at
5/29/2008 12:28:41 PM
|
#2 My point is, the title of the article is nothing more than a sensationalist headline about what Adrian quite rightly points out that it should've been called:
"Vista catches up with XP … finally"
or
"Vista beats XP in photo-finish"
And enthusiasts will not rely on someone else's scores to make the choice for them. They'll do the tests themselves and look at their own numbers.
This post was edited by Flint2 on Thursday, May 29, 2008 at 12:30.
|
#4 By
23275 (68.186.182.236)
at
5/29/2008 12:42:55 PM
|
Puuuuhhhreeeze READ the article.
It is much less about performance than the title suggests - the title, as an example of what the article DOES intend to convey, is how poorly the original ET article was written and edited.
The point being made is about how old data, old drivers, and old experiences are being used to perpetuate inaccurate conclusions about Windows Vista - and most especially, how the press is shaping perceptions (intentionally and according to a bias)... where... there is no evidence to support that bias. The title of the article by Ed Bott was intentionally designed to lampoon that trend.
The facts are clearer, Vista and the ecosystem around it have matured to the point where even gaming experiences are at least as good as they were on a very mature XP, and in relevant and popular cases (read, new games) even better than they were on XP - and DX10 has not even been factored!
#1, obviously, the author of that article either did not read Ed's article, or he scored very poorly on basic reading comprehension tests - and recently so....
|
#5 By
32810 (99.252.203.192)
at
5/29/2008 1:30:38 PM
|
Ultimately, it's up to the individual to decide. I myself have found Vista to be more than adequate in terms of gaming. While I don't benchmark to see if there's a +/- FPS, the overall feel in games is pretty solid.
I didn't find the Extreme Tech article any different or sensationalistic than others. It states the operating systems involved, the hardware specs and the synthetic benchmarks. It's just showing that Vista needs new hardware, better driver support, and Microsoft's own updates. Some predicted that Vista would hit it's stride in mid 08 and this seems to be the case.
I don't see what all the fuss is about. Singling out Extreme Tech is nit picking while there are thousands of similar articles on the Internet.
|
#6 By
2332 (66.92.78.241)
at
5/29/2008 2:37:27 PM
|
#3 - "And enthusiasts will not rely on someone else's scores to make the choice for them. They'll do the tests themselves and look at their own numbers."
Hardly. The reason sites like ExtremeTech exist is because enthusiasts rely on them to help them make purchasing decisions.
Most people can't afford to go around buying all the various products out there just to see which one gives them 3 FPS more in Crisis.
Why don't you go back and look at how long it took for XP perf in games to equal that of Win 9x. It took months if not years. Vista was no different. But your buddy Adrian doesn't seem to care about history... he just wants to bash Vista.
|
#7 By
11888 (70.51.90.41)
at
5/29/2008 11:17:07 PM
|
Can hi everyone?
|
#8 By
62611 (67.166.83.247)
at
5/30/2008 8:37:50 AM
|
I've been saying it for awhile now. The problem with Vista isn't Vista, it's drivers. And this proves it. I have also been saying that Nvidia has the worst drivers and it has been documented that Nvidia cards are responsible for the majority of crashes in Vista.
The test uses and ATI card and now Vista comes out ahead.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302495,00.asp
|
#9 By
2960 (72.196.195.185)
at
5/30/2008 12:45:44 PM
|
#1,
That's the only article I've ever read to state the opposite. I think I'll go with the vast, VAST majority of testers on this subject.
And, of course, my own findings.
Vista lags well behind XP in every game I've tested it on. In fact games run faster on my AMD 4800x2 7800GTX system under XP than they do on my Intel E6700 8800GTX system with Vista, and that's why all my Gaming is done on the XP machine.
Not to mention there are no sound issues or continuing 8800GTX issues under XP.
It is what it is.
TL
This post was edited by TechLarry on Friday, May 30, 2008 at 12:47.
|
#10 By
8556 (12.206.195.4)
at
5/30/2008 2:15:51 PM
|
TL: What would happen if you had a duplicate hard drive lying around that matches the one in your Vista machine. Why not use it to do a repair install on the Vista machine, with the Vista drive unplugged of course. Run tests with identical hardware with the latest SP's and drivers on each system. How similar do they run now? Apples and oranges comparison, as valid as they may seem to someone, are not science.
|
#11 By
3746 (72.12.161.38)
at
5/30/2008 3:12:49 PM
|
I have an 8800GTX and Vista and had no issues. My system when gaming is far more stable then XP ever was. I play TF2 all the time and the system is rock solid. Bioshock all the way through without a crash. Unless you are doing apples to apples test you can't know that one machine is faster. I have XP on another drive and there is no noticeable difference in speed or video quality between XP and Vista. And Vista wins for stability on my machine. It is amusing that someone would slag a scientific apples to apples test because their gut tells them something. Maybe the Vista haters want to hate it so much that they will believe anything even when the evidence shows them the contrary.
|
|
|
|
|