You guys don't understand that technology HAS to progess. And it WILL progess. Vista and DX10 may of come in a little bit early but its the next step in technology. why are u trying to push it away. u should be embracing something new which is going to make the new games 10x better than anything now.
This isn't progress, DX9 can do everything that DX10 can do, DX10 just does it with a better FPS. As pointed out there is no reason for DX10 being Vista only anymore, it's just locking people into Vista for the sake of Microsoft making more cash and pushing their new operating system. Microsoft still claim that DX10 wouldn't work in XP, and I wonder where I've heard that before. OH yes that's right I heard it from Microsoft when they claimed that Internet Explorer and MSN couldn't be removed from XP and look what happened there.
DX10 certainly can do thing that DX9 cannot - the issue is really not about DX10 except that you have to have Vista to have DX10. Vista is just such a monumental slug in terms of gaming performance that any benifit to DX10 is far outweighed by its terrible performance. Additionally, since Vista is getting such slow adoption there are just not enough installs to warrant a developer going all out with DX10 in a game as they would go broke trying to find enough people to buy it. Lastly, time is the enemy - the next Windows is due in 2009/2010 so Vista really had to gain a foothold this year to avoid being a repeat of Milinium and it hasn't.
My god where do I start. I feel like I've already had this conversation like 40 times. I think I'll Break this down.
1. "Vista is such a monumental slug in terms of Gaming.........." This comment is followed by your OPPINION. It's not shared by everyone. Some of us who have played on XP for years, that have moved to Vista see no noticeable changes in proformance. Perhaps some benchmarks are lower, but whats the point in bragging about something you can't notice? If I buy a car that can beat your car in a race, but it will take 234 miles befor I get more then 10 feet in front of you; who cares?
2. The next installment of Windows... So they say is about 3 years away, but they've never been on time befor, who would bet their hard earned dollar that this next version will be any different? Tack on the NORMAL 2-4 years of extra production time, and we're looking at Vista for the next 5 years. I don't see a game developers waiting for the next generation of operating systems to come out.
I don't understand why you can't just accept the fact that your thoughts are only YOUR THOUGHTS. You make blanket statments about an entire OS. Vista isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread. I had this same arguement like a decade ago about Windows XP. People are busy complaining and bashing. Lets move on. Vista will most likely be the most common OS in 4 years. Even if NOBODY upgrades the amount of OEM's that are put out will push Vista into 1st. XP will have 2-3x more time to collect its clients then Vista, and Vista will still take its place one day.
If you don't like Vista, Ok. I can understand why. You don't need the added security, or the easier use, smarter organization system. I guess not if you've used XP for a decade, these things wouldn't be that important to you. If your worried that your 3dMark07 might drop 400 points, I can understand why you wouldn't like it. However when you say something to the effect of "VISTA ISN'T WORTH IT" Try and show some class and be correct about it; say "Vista isn't worth it TO ME"
We compared the same title side by side on a system running DX10 on Vista to the same title on an identical system running DX9 on XP, and it's difficult--sometimes impossible--to detect significant differences in how the games look or perform.
thanks but I have better things to spend my money on
read this and explain to me why I should replace a perfectly acceptable version of XP with Vista. crave.cnet.com/8301-1_105-9750536-1.html my favorite part of the article We compared the same title side by side on a system running DX10 on Vista to the same title on an identical system running DX9 on XP, and it's difficult--sometimes impossible--to detect significant differences in how the games look or perform. thanks but I have better things to spend my money on
I look at Vista as something people will get if they have the extra money to throw around. It is no game breaker.
If AoC is truly going to be DX10 only that is gonna hurt this company just cause alot of people are not gonna fork out the what 300+ for vista just to play a game I personally think they should rethink that whole strategy you cant force people to just into the future "Vista" alot of companys are not even compatible with vista yet I know I had vista installed till some of my expensive software wouldnt work for it.
wow wicked you must be a noob, their are already games out that run dx10 and still can be played on xp with dx9. Just because its dx10 doesn't mean you cant play it on dx9. And aoc isn't labeled as vista only. So go back to your little emo shack and think of another way to bash the game.
Actualy your wrong. There are "Vista ONLY" games being played on XP right now. There currently are no games Released that are DX10. Crysis, and AoC will most likely be the first. Yes, the Games for Vista, can be hacked very easily, like shadowrun which is DX9 not DX10.
World in Conflict is a DX10 game shipping in september this year, Bioshock is a DX10 game shipping this year, and UT3 is a DX10 game shipping this year. So WiC will be out first followed by Bioshock and then Crysis.
As for Crysis amd AoC being the first, Flight SimulatorX was the first true DX10 game and it's been out for a little while already.
And every one of those games is also compatible with DX9, along with Halo 2 (DX9) and Shadowrun (DX9). Those "illegal hacks" you refered to in your earlier post were to enable the games to run on XP, because they were tied to the OS, NOT the directx. In other words, a blatant attempt by MS to force people to buy Vista, even though Vista would add nothing to the games it was being required for.
As for FSX, it makes sense that the first game developer to jump at DX10 would be MS. And the fact that all their newest "next-gen" "Games for Windows" are not strictly DX10 shows the lack of confidence MS itself has in the ability of DX10 to sell games.
By the way, Bioshock comes out in 2 days? So, don't think WiC is gonna beat it out.
Dont say that Vista is crap, I'm using it for 3 months and i have no bugs and its stable.
Then you are just running it on a home PC and doing little real work with it and probably only running the software it came with.
I am a software developer so I do not even want to get started with the crap MS put out with Vista.
In April of this year even Dell went back to offering XP to it's customer base because of the complaints.
For developers It does not support VS 2002, 2003, and barely supports VS 2005 - which is why the beta for VS 2008 have been available for over half a year.
It whooped all MS office uses and even the upgrade to 2007 that was touted as Vista Ready was NOT.
MS dropped the ball so hard with the release of Vista that over the next 24 months we may see some big changes in MS. They totally mis-read their market base.
Corporations just spend billions upgrading to XP and office 2003/2005 along with all the other products from MS that ran on XP that now barely work and in some instances simply do not work with Vista.
MS solution, buy Vista and buy the new upgrades.
The only real sales MS has right now of Vista is the new home PC market and the few R & D sales, like myself.
IMHO Vista will go down the same short pier that MS Millennium took. (anyone remember that OS release?)
Originally posted by FE|Tachyon 1. "Vista is such a monumental slug in terms of Gaming.........." This comment is followed by your OPPINION. It's not shared by everyone. Some of us who have played on XP for years, that have moved to Vista see no noticeable changes in proformance. Perhaps some benchmarks are lower, but whats the point in bragging about something you can't notice? If I buy a car that can beat your car in a race, but it will take 234 miles befor I get more then 10 feet in front of you; who cares?
Sorry - but it is a FACT that Vista performs worse, substantially so, for 3D gaming. If you care to say it is subjective that the performance drop (documented all over at 15% to 40%) is not a big deal to you then go ahead, but it is not arguable that Vista gaming performance is worse than XP - this is FACT.
Originally posted by FE|Tachyon 1. "Vista is such a monumental slug in terms of Gaming.........." This comment is followed by your OPPINION. It's not shared by everyone. Some of us who have played on XP for years, that have moved to Vista see no noticeable changes in proformance. Perhaps some benchmarks are lower, but whats the point in bragging about something you can't notice? If I buy a car that can beat your car in a race, but it will take 234 miles befor I get more then 10 feet in front of you; who cares?
Sorry - but it is a FACT that Vista performs worse, substantially so, for 3D gaming. If you care to say it is subjective that the performance drop (documented all over at 15% to 40%) is not a big deal to you then go ahead, but it is not arguable that Vista gaming performance is worse than XP - this is FACT.
Your saying EVERY test will show a minimum of 15% drop? Can you show me something more then just your keystrokes to verify those numbers? I would rate it at more like 4-5% based on my experience with my own PC. IT wasn't really noticeable unless I would max out all graphics settings, but I never play with maxxed settings even if my PC will handle it.
4% to 5% is BS man and if you really are suggesting that is representative of what EVERY respectable (I.E. not paid marketing shills for MS) hardware/PC sites are demonstrating then you are either a moron (and I don't think you are one) or you are just some viral marketing plant for MS. On average, Vista has been shown repeatedly to perform substantially worse than XP - and the 'worse' is of a sigfficient margin that any real gamer would consider it unsuitable as a gaming platform.
Seriously man, you mind as well argue that the night isn't darker than the day if you are going to try to argue that Vista is not a significantly worse performer in games than XP. And if that is the type of argument you wish to make I will bow out and let you just make yourself look foolish and have a good laugh at you with everyone in the real world where we recognize the obvious.
4% to 5% is BS man and if you really are suggesting that is representative of what EVERY respectable (I.E. not paid marketing shills for MS) hardware/PC sites are demonstrating then you are either a moron (and I don't think you are one) or you are just some viral marketing plant for MS. On average, Vista has been shown repeatedly to perform substantially worse than XP - and the 'worse' is of a sigfficient margin that any real gamer would consider it unsuitable as a gaming platform.
Seriously man, you mind as well argue that the night isn't darker than the day if you are going to try to argue that Vista is not a significantly worse performer in games than XP. And if that is the type of argument you wish to make I will bow out and let you just make yourself look foolish and have a good laugh at you with everyone in the real world where we recognize the obvious.
I wish I was paid by somebody like Microsoft, but I'm not. I've got no stake in MS's sucess, and own no shares in Microsoft or any affiliates. I'm only disputing the fact that your saying vista Isn't a usable gaming platform. I play just fine on it. I never run anything at highest settings even if my PC can handle it, partly because I got used to an older machine and this works fine for me. XP is slightly better then Vista in proformance. On a TOP end Machine the average person wouldn't notice a difference. I know this, because I've played on both. I've had the same machine with both OS's. I cant see a difference in gaming. I'm not playing Crysis tho. I'm playing games like WOW, War Rock, CS, Farcry. Games run flawlessly. Sorry if you disagree, but you don't play games on vista do you?
I never said it isn't usable as a gaming platform, I said it isn't any good as a gaming platform compared to XP. As for you comment that the average person wouldn't notice it I think the facts show that to be quit untrue. Gamers are not Grandma, they are somewhat computer savvy and in terms of performance they will notice the performance drops in Vista. If it where a minor drop then I might agree with you but all the evidence shows the difference to be substantial, as much as 40% and on average around 20%+ even on high end rigs. In terms of games 15% or 20%, let alone 40%, is a HUGE difference - HUGE!
Just by way of example - I just got Company of Heroes so after your last post I installed it on the Vista x64 installation that dual boots with XP on this machine. EXACT same hardware config for both machines (as in sig) with the Vista side getting the benifit of 4 Gs of RAM whereas the XP side can only address 2.25 G. So on same for same hardware with the Vista getting double the RAM to use the results are as follows:
Windows XP - all graphics and audio on highest possible settings, 1920 x 1200 resolution - average FPS for the included performance test - 59.5.
Windows Vista x64 (with extra 2Gs of RAM) - all graphics and audio on highest possible settings, 1920 x 1200 resolution - average FPS for the included performance test - 48.6.
This is as same for same as you can get and is completely consistent with all the tests I have done over the nearly years I have been using and testing Vista. While CoH has DX10 support added via patch and both XP and Vista installs where patched fully for this test I did the tests in DX9 mode to get a same comparison. This is a substantial performance difference by any reasonable standard, and my rig is about as high end as you can get. Additionally, as I have shown here so show all the hardware sites doing similar same for same tests. Face it man, Vista just sucks for gaming compared to XP - this is about as well established as it can possibly be.
You think the average person can tell a huge difference between 50 and 60 FPS ?? They may tell a slight difference, but if you blind tested somebody, on two machines and asked them what they would guess the FPS on two machines One with 50 and another with 70 FPS I doubt they'd be anywhere near what the actualy FPS is, if they guessed. I know I personaly can't visualy see a difference between 50 and 60 FPS. Also, having a FPS Rate of 200 doesn't help you if your refresh rate is 65mhz. A lot of gamers will argue that even though their monitor will only display as many frames as the htz rating will be able to produce, dispite it not showing the higher rates, they "FEEL" the difference. This is argueable, even though reliable science will say that theres no benifit. Its like audiophiles who say they can tell the difference between sounds produced well above and below what the human ear can actualy hear. Science says no, but still they insist. So since my monitor is (and almost every other monitor thats an LCD) displays 75mhz. I don't see the problem with losing a few FPS. IF I played at 1900x1200 maybe I would have a problem, but thats an insane resolution for me. Only a small percentage of people play that high of a resolution. So when I say MOST people won't notice the difference between Vista and XP, I'm very serious. IF I'm getting 79 fps in 1280x1024 XP boosting that up to 90 fps isn't going to be noticeable to me.
Yes,I think the average gamer cares about a 20% difference in performance especially when that performance hit is coupled with a number of other problems (and vista has many of them even if I expect SP1 to clear allot of them up). As for the commentary on the high end settings and resolution - that is irrelevant, the comparison is the same from XP to vista regardless of the settings and resolution so long as both are set to run the same. And since the only supposed benefit of DX10 is high end image improvements it would really be pretty stupid to argue on the one hand that tDX10 offers great new graphics capabilities (as yet unseen and unproven) only to then argue that people should dial back the settings, negating any visual improvement, so they don't notice the performance drop which is there anyways.
Come on man, face it - Vista is just not the best OS for gaming, not even close. Maybe things get sorted out down the road, I have no doubt issues are being discovered and will get addressed in SP1 and beyond - but for now and the foreseeable future gaming on Vista is a joke.
It's not as simple as upgrading to vista either. Vista itself is a beast, I recommend a quad core processor with 4gb ram.
I currently have a dual core with 2gb ram and 7900 nvidia - I own a license for vista ultimate but, I won't install it untill basically microsoft forces me to with this direct x 10 - microsoft is really tearing us a new one with this....
Yes,I think the average gamer cares about a 20% difference in performance especially when that performance hit is coupled with a number of other problems (and vista has many of them even if I expect SP1 to clear allot of them up). As for the commentary on the high end settings and resolution - that is irrelevant, the comparison is the same from XP to vista regardless of the settings and resolution so long as both are set to run the same. And since the only supposed benefit of DX10 is high end image improvements it would really be pretty stupid to argue on the one hand that tDX10 offers great new graphics capabilities (as yet unseen and unproven) only to then argue that people should dial back the settings, negating any visual improvement, so they don't notice the performance drop which is there anyways.
Come on man, face it - Vista is just not the best OS for gaming, not even close. Maybe things get sorted out down the road, I have no doubt issues are being discovered and will get addressed in SP1 and beyond - but for now and the foreseeable future gaming on Vista is a joke.
Again you avoided my post, and offered nothing to rebut the fact that, Yes Vista is more resource intesive, but definitly not a bad gaming platform. You can benchmark higher with XP, but when your benchmarks are 20x higher then what a human can see, then are those statistics really important? No. Yes XP is better for your benchmarks. If you have a low end machine you may NEED to use XP. However, if you have a good machine that puts up 80 FPS on a game, with Vista, XP will offer little if ANY noticabley improvement.
You are truly uninformed - I have posted a number of links (and they are all over) showing real world game for game comparisons of XP and Vista and vista is remarkably poor in all of them. As for the human eye thing - try an education as you are simply wrong. Motion blur begins at just under 30 FPS but without interlacing as TV does such low FPS shows to stutter for most average folk. In fact, until you get about 60 of so in a progressive scan mode the image will look as if it is stuttering to most everyone. Beyond that, the human eye can easily detect variations well above even 100 FPS.
You constant blabbering about things you obviously know nothing about is pitiful as is yoru absolute denial of reality in terms of the well documented (and practically universal) evidence that Vista gaming is remarkably lower than XP.
If AoC is truly going to be DX10 only that is gonna hurt this company just cause alot of people are not gonna fork out the what 300+ for vista just to play a game I personally think they should rethink that whole strategy you cant force people to just into the future "Vista" alot of companys are not even compatible with vista yet I know I had vista installed till some of my expensive software wouldnt work for it.
And yet one more person who goes off the rails ranting and raving about things they obviously haven't researched. AoC supports BOTH DX9 and DX10.
ROFLMAO. Theres this phenomena, and I love how the game has all these problems people keep talking (and flaming) about and it's not even in beta yet.
LAWL these people should play a game that's out now and bitch about it.
Complaining about issues that might happen, before a game is even released, is just retarded.
You are truly uninformed - I have posted a number of links (and they are all over) showing real world game for game comparisons of XP and Vista and vista is remarkably poor in all of them. As for the human eye thing - try an education as you are simply wrong. Motion blur begins at just under 30 FPS but without interlacing as TV does such low FPS shows to stutter for most average folk. In fact, until you get about 60 of so in a progressive scan mode the image will look as if it is stuttering to most everyone. Beyond that, the human eye can easily detect variations well above even 100 FPS.
You constant blabbering about things you obviously know nothing about is pitiful as is yoru absolute denial of reality in terms of the well documented (and practically universal) evidence that Vista gaming is remarkably lower than XP.
The problem is you think your smarter then you are. I'm not saying that you cannot see 30 FPS. My point BEING was this, besides a slightly longer loading time on a VISTA machine; (BY THIS I MEAN, YOU WILL LIKELY SEE AN IMPROVEMENT WITH XP) but OTHER THEN THAT If I have a Monitor with 80htz refresh rate, and I'm getting 80 FPS I'm going to get an OPTIMAL Picture, with little distortion. When I hit 230 FPS on an 80htz Monitor I'm going to get whats called "tearing" part of the picture is on one frame and another part of the picture is on another frame. Lots of people will argue about this, and swear that they feel 230 fps is better, but science will say otherwise. Now can your EYE see the difference between 80fps and 230FPS? Prolly, but not everyone could tell the difference. HOWEVER 230 FPS sent to a monitor that refreshes 80 times per second isn't gonna look like 230 FPS. It's whats called a bottle neck, but not in the sense that its slowing the machine down, but rather your sensory organs (EYES) are being restricted by what can be fed to them via a Video Display Device (We call them MONITORS) Your EYES can only pick up as MUCH as is being FED to them, and that which a HUMAN eye can see.
The thing is, NOBODY KNOWS. SO who cares if you have 300fps or 100 FPS The only way to tell if its GOOD, is to see it. Maybe thats why you HATE VISTA? YOur "MORE IS BETTER" attitude overrides your brain and automaticly spits out the "VISTA IS WAY WAY POOR, TOTALY TOTALY BAD BAD, POOR game platform"
THE HARD REALITY OF IT IS, your Monitor ISN'T pushing out anymore then 85 FPS unless you've got something that costs over 4 grand, or got it from NASA.
It isn't about getting 200+ FPS and what happens when you do as that is not real world practical. The point I was making, and I think I was fairly stating it, is that even though motion blur happens as you approach 30 FPS that with computers using progressive scanning that is not a very pleasant picture. So when you are talking about a game running at 45 FPS in Vista VS 55 or 60 in XP it is a BIG difference that most any gamer would notice.
Now, just to show i am not off the deep end on this I will post something against my contention (allthough 1 such report amoungst all the rest still makes the overall point) - Hard OCP on Call of Juarez:
For the first time this year we are seeing DirectX 10 provide a real improvement to the gameplay experience. We noticed mostly the higher resolution textures and relief mapping along with HDR and lighting improvements.
...
It does beg a question though; could some of these effects have been done in DX9? One aspect that jumps out at me is the use of different textures between DX9 and DX10 mode. DirectX 9 supports high resolution textures as well and also supports relief mapping, so the same texture effects could be done in DX9.
While DX9 could technically do it though performance would have to be taken into consideration. DX10 is much more efficient at reducing per-object state changing overhead compared to DX9, which allows developers to add more detail in their games. While some of the things do seem like they could be done in DX9 it may very well be the case that DX10 provides performance optimizations to allow all of these effects to work together with greater efficiency. Besides, the geometry shader accelerated particles can only be done in DX10 on DX10 GPUs.
Now this is the first and only independant, and otherwise reliable, test showing comparable performance between DX9 and DX10 and something in the DX10 version that was notable and otherwise worth having. It seems from the reading that much of the improvement came from better textures which could easily be used in DX9 (some people are even porting them) but there was other stuff the remarked about. The point is that while this is the first game to show to be on par with DX9/XP in performance thier statements make it fairly clear that the overwhelming experience has been that it is not on par with DX9/XP. It is also worth noting that to get the on par performance you have to be using a very high end GPU and when you take that with the comments from Gabe that i quoted, and others, I think it is pretty clear that we are just not going to get much in the way of DX10. Not necessarily because DX10 itself is crap, or bad in anyway, but becuase Vista is getting such poor deployment that there is unlikely to be a big enough install base anytime ni the foreseeable future to really warrant the independent development path a true DX10 game must take (going even beyond what consoles can do).
SP1 will help Vista out alot but with the delay of it until, it seems, next spring it is going to come to late. vista, and inexorably DX10, is suffering from the same thing that plagues Apples and Linux - it is such a small percentage of the market that it doesn't warrant the attention it needs from developers to break out of its niche. It isn't even a matter of good or bad it is a matter of being irrelevant.
At this point Crysis, and perhaps AoC although sub games typically have less broad gaming market influence than do non sub games, will be the do or die release for Vista and DX10. If Crysis really delivers an amazing experience in DX10 that performs on par (or close) to the XP/DX9 version while offering game critical improvements then many will move and then perhaps a good SP1 can bring others and get the ball rolling. If Crysis delivers some minor visual improvements in DX10 and/or performs notably worse (as I quoted before more than a 10% drop in performance without stunning visual improvement is going to be notable) then Vista and DX10 will wither on the vine as the second coming of Millennium unless MS decides to release DX10 for XP in order to stop the bleeding of people to other platforms such as Apple and Linux. Keep in mind that OpenGL 3.0 is due soon and it promises bigger and better things than even DX10 promised - do a Google for 'ID Tech 5' or check here. John carmack has weight in the industry and is sticking to openGL, and if you want the definition of terrible performance try running anything OpenGL based on Vista for a total abortion. If DX10 stumbles, OpenGL could make a big comeback given the propensity of gamers to hate MS and the improvement so flate in Linux it is not impossible that MS could lose gamers.
AmazingAveryAge of Conan AdvocateMemberUncommonPosts: 7,188
He is a request to the Original Poster, how about you change the title of the thread to Direct x 10 discussion and thats all it has been for the last 8 pages and that now you know Age of Conan runs Dx9 and Dx10 - it wont hurt the sales of the game - right? maybe a bit of clarification that its going to hurt Microsofts sales.
vista takes advantage of higher end PCs, like pushing it to its limits and makeing the computer do what its supposed to do .... atleast thats what its supposed to do. XP doesnt support multi cores if i heard/remember correctly. Or it sees the multicores, it just doesnt use their full potential.
Playing: EVE Online Favorite MMOs: WoW, SWG Pre-cu, Lineage 2, UO, EQ, EVE online Looking forward to: Archeage, Kingdom Under Fire 2 KUF2's Official Website - http://www.kufii.com/ENG/ -
vista takes advantage of higher end PCs, like pushing it to its limits and makeing the computer do what its supposed to do .... atleast thats what its supposed to do. XP doesnt support multi cores if i heard/remember correctly. Or it sees the multicores, it just doesnt use their full potential.
Well, XP doesn't FULLY untilize Multimore Processing, but Vista doesn't exactly do the best job itself. However the nature of vista, and how much it usualy has going on at one time, will yield MUCH MUCH better results on a Quad Core.
Vista isn't for YESTERDAYS computers. I've been trying to say this a hundred times and ANTI-CHange Agent has battled with me on everything about it.
If you can't get your game to 60 FPS in Vista, MAYBE you need XP. 60FPS is the cut off to me, because as many sites will tell you, including Tom's Hardware Guide 60-70 FPS is where the human eye stops telling the difference. Now If your running 2400X1600 something insane like this on your system You'll need 2 8800 GTX's for some of the newest games, but really I don't want to talk about 1% of the market, I'll look at the 80% that are around 1600x1200ish +/- , and this is easy to get 60 FPS on newer games. Vista makes a good gaming platform. I
IF YOU READ what Agnt Smith posted, DX10 offers BETTER TEXTURES, and uses them MORE effiecently then DX9, now this isn't a question of why Microsoft won't make XP DX10 right now, but RIGHT NOW, VISTA is where its at for TOMARROWS games. You can live in the past if you want, and you may be very happy. There will be things that you won't get full advantage of, BUT HEY, you MIGHT hit 120FPS. (Not that you need that, at all.. since you can't see it with a human eye)
There is no difference in Vista's use of multi core processors than XPs. I am not anti change, I am just anti things that are not as good as other things. I don't like Linux for things Windows does better and I don't like vista since XP is so clearly (and documented so) better for nearly all performance related applications INCLUDING games. Give that vista has barely even gotten to 8% of the market in nearly a year I would say the world agrees with me that vista is not better.
As for the future - I doubt Vista gaming will ever reach its potential as it is simply not getting the adoption needed to attract developers. Right now so few gamers have vista that any developer making a game now would be suicidal to design it with anything other than superficial DX10 support. Superficial DX10 support does not warrant the performance issue that are documented with Vista.
Now, all that being said, MS sent word out today that SP1 will be available first quarter 2008 (probably march) - that is rather late but if it has the fixes that are rumored vista will be alot better. However, the damage is allready done to vista's rep and the poor deployment in 2007 and not getting SP1 until Feb/March of 2008 will likely kill any real hope of Vista supplanting XP. At best vista may become a 'glitzier' version deployed in parallel like maybe you see with cars - the common model and hten the ZX one with all the extras. But this is a far cry from being sufficiently deployed to warrant developer attention and the switch to full DX10 rendering path. keep in mind, such a switch requires not only relegating you game to being vista only but also breaks portability to consoles. Perhaps some games would do this if Vista had established itself this year as the choice for gamers but as it cannot there is no way developers will code for an OS in such short deployment - PERIOD (see Mac and Linux if you need proof of this). Lastly, openGL is gaining momentum as it is portable to consoles, Mac, Linux, XP, and even Vista although vista is absimal with OpenGL). I believe the DX10 mess (mainly it being Vista only) is going to drive developers to OpenGL again over time. That is far mroe likely than a DX10 remaining stuck in Vista ever getting deployment sufficient enough to warrant developer attention.
The following list describes some of the reliability improvements that Windows Vista SP1 will include:
Improved reliability and compatibility of Windows Vista when used with newer graphics cards in several specific scenarios and configurations.
Improved reliability when working with external displays on a laptop.
Improved Windows Vista reliability in networking configuration scenarios.
Improved reliability of systems that were upgraded from Windows XP to Windows Vista.
Increased compatibility with many printer drivers.
Increased reliability and performance of Windows Vista when entering sleep and resuming from sleep.
The following list describes some of the performance improvements that Windows Vista SP1 will include:
Improves the speed of copying and extracting files.
Improves the time to become active from Hibernate and Resume modes.
Improves the performance of domain-joined PCs when operating off the domain; in the current release version of Windows Vista, users would experience long delays when opening the File dialog box.
Improves performance of Windows® Internet Explorer® 7 in Windows Vista, reducing CPU utilization and speeding JavaScript parsing.
Improves battery life by reducing CPU utilization by not redrawing the screen as frequently, on certain computers.
Improves the logon experience by removing the occasional 10-second delay between pressing CTRL-ALT-DEL and the password prompt displaying.
Addresses an issue in the current version of Windows Vista that makes browsing network file shares consume significant bandwidth and not perform as fast as expected.
There is no difference in Vista's use of multi core processors than XPs. I am not anti change, I am just anti things that are not as good as other things. I don't like Linux for things Windows does better and I don't like vista since XP is so clearly (and documented so) better for nearly all performance related applications INCLUDING games. Give that vista has barely even gotten to 8% of the market in nearly a year I would say the world agrees with me that vista is not better.
As for the future - I doubt Vista gaming will ever reach its potential as it is simply not getting the adoption needed to attract developers. Right now so few gamers have vista that any developer making a game now would be suicidal to design it with anything other than superficial DX10 support. Superficial DX10 support does not warrant the performance issue that are documented with Vista.
Now, all that being said, MS sent word out today that SP1 will be available first quarter 2008 (probably march) - that is rather late but if it has the fixes that are rumored vista will be alot better. However, the damage is allready done to vista's rep and the poor deployment in 2007 and not getting SP1 until Feb/March of 2008 will likely kill any real hope of Vista supplanting XP. At best vista may become a 'glitzier' version deployed in parallel like maybe you see with cars - the common model and hten the ZX one with all the extras. But this is a far cry from being sufficiently deployed to warrant developer attention and the switch to full DX10 rendering path. keep in mind, such a switch requires not only relegating you game to being vista only but also breaks portability to consoles. Perhaps some games would do this if Vista had established itself this year as the choice for gamers but as it cannot there is no way developers will code for an OS in such short deployment - PERIOD (see Mac and Linux if you need proof of this). Lastly, openGL is gaining momentum as it is portable to consoles, Mac, Linux, XP, and even Vista although vista is absimal with OpenGL). I believe the DX10 mess (mainly it being Vista only) is going to drive developers to OpenGL again over time. That is far mroe likely than a DX10 remaining stuck in Vista ever getting deployment sufficient enough to warrant developer attention.
The following list describes some of the reliability improvements that Windows Vista SP1 will include:
Improved reliability and compatibility of Windows Vista when used with newer graphics cards in several specific scenarios and configurations. Improved reliability when working with external displays on a laptop. Improved Windows Vista reliability in networking configuration scenarios. Improved reliability of systems that were upgraded from Windows XP to Windows Vista. Increased compatibility with many printer drivers. Increased reliability and performance of Windows Vista when entering sleep and resuming from sleep.
The following list describes some of the performance improvements that Windows Vista SP1 will include:
Improves the speed of copying and extracting files. Improves the time to become active from Hibernate and Resume modes. Improves the performance of domain-joined PCs when operating off the domain; in the current release version of Windows Vista, users would experience long delays when opening the File dialog box. Improves performance of Windows® Internet Explorer® 7 in Windows Vista, reducing CPU utilization and speeding JavaScript parsing. Improves battery life by reducing CPU utilization by not redrawing the screen as frequently, on certain computers. Improves the logon experience by removing the occasional 10-second delay between pressing CTRL-ALT-DEL and the password prompt displaying. Addresses an issue in the current version of Windows Vista that makes browsing network file shares consume significant bandwidth and not perform as fast as expected.
I think I should have stated the MULTI core thing differently. What I should have said was, DUE to the nature of Vista, and the more labor intesnive processes that are going on at one time, it is FAR FAR better on Quad core processors, then a single core processor.
If you look at proformance of Vista on a single core machine vs dual and then Quad , you'll see the curve is definitly favoring this theory. Vista uses a lot more processor, then XP.
Comments
This isn't progress, DX9 can do everything that DX10 can do, DX10 just does it with a better FPS. As pointed out there is no reason for DX10 being Vista only anymore, it's just locking people into Vista for the sake of Microsoft making more cash and pushing their new operating system. Microsoft still claim that DX10 wouldn't work in XP, and I wonder where I've heard that before. OH yes that's right I heard it from Microsoft when they claimed that Internet Explorer and MSN couldn't be removed from XP and look what happened there.
DX10 certainly can do thing that DX9 cannot - the issue is really not about DX10 except that you have to have Vista to have DX10. Vista is just such a monumental slug in terms of gaming performance that any benifit to DX10 is far outweighed by its terrible performance. Additionally, since Vista is getting such slow adoption there are just not enough installs to warrant a developer going all out with DX10 in a game as they would go broke trying to find enough people to buy it. Lastly, time is the enemy - the next Windows is due in 2009/2010 so Vista really had to gain a foothold this year to avoid being a repeat of Milinium and it hasn't.
My god where do I start. I feel like I've already had this conversation like 40 times. I think I'll Break this down.
1. "Vista is such a monumental slug in terms of Gaming.........." This comment is followed by your OPPINION. It's not shared by everyone. Some of us who have played on XP for years, that have moved to Vista see no noticeable changes in proformance. Perhaps some benchmarks are lower, but whats the point in bragging about something you can't notice? If I buy a car that can beat your car in a race, but it will take 234 miles befor I get more then 10 feet in front of you; who cares?
2. The next installment of Windows... So they say is about 3 years away, but they've never been on time befor, who would bet their hard earned dollar that this next version will be any different? Tack on the NORMAL 2-4 years of extra production time, and we're looking at Vista for the next 5 years. I don't see a game developers waiting for the next generation of operating systems to come out.
I don't understand why you can't just accept the fact that your thoughts are only YOUR THOUGHTS. You make blanket statments about an entire OS. Vista isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread. I had this same arguement like a decade ago about Windows XP. People are busy complaining and bashing. Lets move on. Vista will most likely be the most common OS in 4 years. Even if NOBODY upgrades the amount of OEM's that are put out will push Vista into 1st. XP will have 2-3x more time to collect its clients then Vista, and Vista will still take its place one day.
If you don't like Vista, Ok. I can understand why. You don't need the added security, or the easier use, smarter organization system. I guess not if you've used XP for a decade, these things wouldn't be that important to you. If your worried that your 3dMark07 might drop 400 points, I can understand why you wouldn't like it. However when you say something to the effect of "VISTA ISN'T WORTH IT" Try and show some class and be correct about it; say "Vista isn't worth it TO ME"
read this and explain to me why I should replace a perfectly acceptable version of XP with Vista.
crave.cnet.com/8301-1_105-9750536-1.html
my favorite part of the article
We compared the same title side by side on a system running DX10 on Vista to the same title on an identical system running DX9 on XP, and it's difficult--sometimes impossible--to detect significant differences in how the games look or perform.
thanks but I have better things to spend my money on
I miss DAoC
I look at Vista as something people will get if they have the extra money to throw around. It is no game breaker.
wow wicked you must be a noob, their are already games out that run dx10 and still can be played on xp with dx9. Just because its dx10 doesn't mean you cant play it on dx9. And aoc isn't labeled as vista only. So go back to your little emo shack and think of another way to bash the game.
Actualy your wrong. There are "Vista ONLY" games being played on XP right now. There currently are no games Released that are DX10. Crysis, and AoC will most likely be the first. Yes, the Games for Vista, can be hacked very easily, like shadowrun which is DX9 not DX10.
World in Conflict is a DX10 game shipping in september this year, Bioshock is a DX10 game shipping this year, and UT3 is a DX10 game shipping this year. So WiC will be out first followed by Bioshock and then Crysis.As for Crysis amd AoC being the first, Flight SimulatorX was the first true DX10 game and it's been out for a little while already.
And every one of those games is also compatible with DX9, along with Halo 2 (DX9) and Shadowrun (DX9). Those "illegal hacks" you refered to in your earlier post were to enable the games to run on XP, because they were tied to the OS, NOT the directx. In other words, a blatant attempt by MS to force people to buy Vista, even though Vista would add nothing to the games it was being required for.
As for FSX, it makes sense that the first game developer to jump at DX10 would be MS. And the fact that all their newest "next-gen" "Games for Windows" are not strictly DX10 shows the lack of confidence MS itself has in the ability of DX10 to sell games.
By the way, Bioshock comes out in 2 days? So, don't think WiC is gonna beat it out.
Then you are just running it on a home PC and doing little real work with it and probably only running the software it came with.
I am a software developer so I do not even want to get started with the crap MS put out with Vista.
In April of this year even Dell went back to offering XP to it's customer base because of the complaints.
For developers It does not support VS 2002, 2003, and barely supports VS 2005 - which is why the beta for VS 2008 have been available for over half a year.
It whooped all MS office uses and even the upgrade to 2007 that was touted as Vista Ready was NOT.
MS dropped the ball so hard with the release of Vista that over the next 24 months we may see some big changes in MS. They totally mis-read their market base.
Corporations just spend billions upgrading to XP and office 2003/2005 along with all the other products from MS that ran on XP that now barely work and in some instances simply do not work with Vista.
MS solution, buy Vista and buy the new upgrades.
The only real sales MS has right now of Vista is the new home PC market and the few R & D sales, like myself.
IMHO Vista will go down the same short pier that MS Millennium took. (anyone remember that OS release?)
Sorry - but it is a FACT that Vista performs worse, substantially so, for 3D gaming. If you care to say it is subjective that the performance drop (documented all over at 15% to 40%) is not a big deal to you then go ahead, but it is not arguable that Vista gaming performance is worse than XP - this is FACT.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
Sorry - but it is a FACT that Vista performs worse, substantially so, for 3D gaming. If you care to say it is subjective that the performance drop (documented all over at 15% to 40%) is not a big deal to you then go ahead, but it is not arguable that Vista gaming performance is worse than XP - this is FACT.
Your saying EVERY test will show a minimum of 15% drop? Can you show me something more then just your keystrokes to verify those numbers? I would rate it at more like 4-5% based on my experience with my own PC. IT wasn't really noticeable unless I would max out all graphics settings, but I never play with maxxed settings even if my PC will handle it.
4% to 5% is BS man and if you really are suggesting that is representative of what EVERY respectable (I.E. not paid marketing shills for MS) hardware/PC sites are demonstrating then you are either a moron (and I don't think you are one) or you are just some viral marketing plant for MS. On average, Vista has been shown repeatedly to perform substantially worse than XP - and the 'worse' is of a sigfficient margin that any real gamer would consider it unsuitable as a gaming platform.
Seriously man, you mind as well argue that the night isn't darker than the day if you are going to try to argue that Vista is not a significantly worse performer in games than XP. And if that is the type of argument you wish to make I will bow out and let you just make yourself look foolish and have a good laugh at you with everyone in the real world where we recognize the obvious.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
I wish I was paid by somebody like Microsoft, but I'm not. I've got no stake in MS's sucess, and own no shares in Microsoft or any affiliates. I'm only disputing the fact that your saying vista Isn't a usable gaming platform. I play just fine on it. I never run anything at highest settings even if my PC can handle it, partly because I got used to an older machine and this works fine for me. XP is slightly better then Vista in proformance. On a TOP end Machine the average person wouldn't notice a difference. I know this, because I've played on both. I've had the same machine with both OS's. I cant see a difference in gaming. I'm not playing Crysis tho. I'm playing games like WOW, War Rock, CS, Farcry. Games run flawlessly. Sorry if you disagree, but you don't play games on vista do you?
I never said it isn't usable as a gaming platform, I said it isn't any good as a gaming platform compared to XP. As for you comment that the average person wouldn't notice it I think the facts show that to be quit untrue. Gamers are not Grandma, they are somewhat computer savvy and in terms of performance they will notice the performance drops in Vista. If it where a minor drop then I might agree with you but all the evidence shows the difference to be substantial, as much as 40% and on average around 20%+ even on high end rigs. In terms of games 15% or 20%, let alone 40%, is a HUGE difference - HUGE!
Just by way of example - I just got Company of Heroes so after your last post I installed it on the Vista x64 installation that dual boots with XP on this machine. EXACT same hardware config for both machines (as in sig) with the Vista side getting the benifit of 4 Gs of RAM whereas the XP side can only address 2.25 G. So on same for same hardware with the Vista getting double the RAM to use the results are as follows:
Windows XP - all graphics and audio on highest possible settings, 1920 x 1200 resolution - average FPS for the included performance test - 59.5.
Windows Vista x64 (with extra 2Gs of RAM) - all graphics and audio on highest possible settings, 1920 x 1200 resolution - average FPS for the included performance test - 48.6.
This is as same for same as you can get and is completely consistent with all the tests I have done over the nearly years I have been using and testing Vista. While CoH has DX10 support added via patch and both XP and Vista installs where patched fully for this test I did the tests in DX9 mode to get a same comparison. This is a substantial performance difference by any reasonable standard, and my rig is about as high end as you can get. Additionally, as I have shown here so show all the hardware sites doing similar same for same tests. Face it man, Vista just sucks for gaming compared to XP - this is about as well established as it can possibly be.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
You think the average person can tell a huge difference between 50 and 60 FPS ?? They may tell a slight difference, but if you blind tested somebody, on two machines and asked them what they would guess the FPS on two machines One with 50 and another with 70 FPS I doubt they'd be anywhere near what the actualy FPS is, if they guessed. I know I personaly can't visualy see a difference between 50 and 60 FPS. Also, having a FPS Rate of 200 doesn't help you if your refresh rate is 65mhz. A lot of gamers will argue that even though their monitor will only display as many frames as the htz rating will be able to produce, dispite it not showing the higher rates, they "FEEL" the difference. This is argueable, even though reliable science will say that theres no benifit. Its like audiophiles who say they can tell the difference between sounds produced well above and below what the human ear can actualy hear. Science says no, but still they insist. So since my monitor is (and almost every other monitor thats an LCD) displays 75mhz. I don't see the problem with losing a few FPS. IF I played at 1900x1200 maybe I would have a problem, but thats an insane resolution for me. Only a small percentage of people play that high of a resolution. So when I say MOST people won't notice the difference between Vista and XP, I'm very serious. IF I'm getting 79 fps in 1280x1024 XP boosting that up to 90 fps isn't going to be noticeable to me.
Yes,I think the average gamer cares about a 20% difference in performance especially when that performance hit is coupled with a number of other problems (and vista has many of them even if I expect SP1 to clear allot of them up). As for the commentary on the high end settings and resolution - that is irrelevant, the comparison is the same from XP to vista regardless of the settings and resolution so long as both are set to run the same. And since the only supposed benefit of DX10 is high end image improvements it would really be pretty stupid to argue on the one hand that tDX10 offers great new graphics capabilities (as yet unseen and unproven) only to then argue that people should dial back the settings, negating any visual improvement, so they don't notice the performance drop which is there anyways.
Come on man, face it - Vista is just not the best OS for gaming, not even close. Maybe things get sorted out down the road, I have no doubt issues are being discovered and will get addressed in SP1 and beyond - but for now and the foreseeable future gaming on Vista is a joke.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
It's not as simple as upgrading to vista either. Vista itself is a beast, I recommend a quad core processor with 4gb ram.
I currently have a dual core with 2gb ram and 7900 nvidia - I own a license for vista ultimate but, I won't install it untill basically microsoft forces me to with this direct x 10 - microsoft is really tearing us a new one with this....
Again you avoided my post, and offered nothing to rebut the fact that, Yes Vista is more resource intesive, but definitly not a bad gaming platform. You can benchmark higher with XP, but when your benchmarks are 20x higher then what a human can see, then are those statistics really important? No. Yes XP is better for your benchmarks. If you have a low end machine you may NEED to use XP. However, if you have a good machine that puts up 80 FPS on a game, with Vista, XP will offer little if ANY noticabley improvement.
You are truly uninformed - I have posted a number of links (and they are all over) showing real world game for game comparisons of XP and Vista and vista is remarkably poor in all of them. As for the human eye thing - try an education as you are simply wrong. Motion blur begins at just under 30 FPS but without interlacing as TV does such low FPS shows to stutter for most average folk. In fact, until you get about 60 of so in a progressive scan mode the image will look as if it is stuttering to most everyone. Beyond that, the human eye can easily detect variations well above even 100 FPS.
You constant blabbering about things you obviously know nothing about is pitiful as is yoru absolute denial of reality in terms of the well documented (and practically universal) evidence that Vista gaming is remarkably lower than XP.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
Now even Gabe Newell is citing DX10 as a mistake - ouch.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
ROFLMAO. Theres this phenomena, and I love how the game has all these problems people keep talking (and flaming) about and it's not even in beta yet.And yet one more person who goes off the rails ranting and raving about things they obviously haven't researched. AoC supports BOTH DX9 and DX10.
LAWL these people should play a game that's out now and bitch about it.
Complaining about issues that might happen, before a game is even released, is just retarded.
-Viz
The problem is you think your smarter then you are. I'm not saying that you cannot see 30 FPS. My point BEING was this, besides a slightly longer loading time on a VISTA machine; (BY THIS I MEAN, YOU WILL LIKELY SEE AN IMPROVEMENT WITH XP) but OTHER THEN THAT If I have a Monitor with 80htz refresh rate, and I'm getting 80 FPS I'm going to get an OPTIMAL Picture, with little distortion. When I hit 230 FPS on an 80htz Monitor I'm going to get whats called "tearing" part of the picture is on one frame and another part of the picture is on another frame. Lots of people will argue about this, and swear that they feel 230 fps is better, but science will say otherwise. Now can your EYE see the difference between 80fps and 230FPS? Prolly, but not everyone could tell the difference. HOWEVER 230 FPS sent to a monitor that refreshes 80 times per second isn't gonna look like 230 FPS. It's whats called a bottle neck, but not in the sense that its slowing the machine down, but rather your sensory organs (EYES) are being restricted by what can be fed to them via a Video Display Device (We call them MONITORS) Your EYES can only pick up as MUCH as is being FED to them, and that which a HUMAN eye can see.
Maybe you'll take a second to read this http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
The thing is, NOBODY KNOWS. SO who cares if you have 300fps or 100 FPS The only way to tell if its GOOD, is to see it. Maybe thats why you HATE VISTA? YOur "MORE IS BETTER" attitude overrides your brain and automaticly spits out the "VISTA IS WAY WAY POOR, TOTALY TOTALY BAD BAD, POOR game platform"
THE HARD REALITY OF IT IS, your Monitor ISN'T pushing out anymore then 85 FPS unless you've got something that costs over 4 grand, or got it from NASA.
It isn't about getting 200+ FPS and what happens when you do as that is not real world practical. The point I was making, and I think I was fairly stating it, is that even though motion blur happens as you approach 30 FPS that with computers using progressive scanning that is not a very pleasant picture. So when you are talking about a game running at 45 FPS in Vista VS 55 or 60 in XP it is a BIG difference that most any gamer would notice.
Now, just to show i am not off the deep end on this I will post something against my contention (allthough 1 such report amoungst all the rest still makes the overall point) - Hard OCP on Call of Juarez:
For the first time this year we are seeing DirectX 10 provide a real improvement to the gameplay experience. We noticed mostly the higher resolution textures and relief mapping along with HDR and lighting improvements.
...
It does beg a question though; could some of these effects have been done in DX9? One aspect that jumps out at me is the use of different textures between DX9 and DX10 mode. DirectX 9 supports high resolution textures as well and also supports relief mapping, so the same texture effects could be done in DX9.
While DX9 could technically do it though performance would have to be taken into consideration. DX10 is much more efficient at reducing per-object state changing overhead compared to DX9, which allows developers to add more detail in their games. While some of the things do seem like they could be done in DX9 it may very well be the case that DX10 provides performance optimizations to allow all of these effects to work together with greater efficiency. Besides, the geometry shader accelerated particles can only be done in DX10 on DX10 GPUs.
Now this is the first and only independant, and otherwise reliable, test showing comparable performance between DX9 and DX10 and something in the DX10 version that was notable and otherwise worth having. It seems from the reading that much of the improvement came from better textures which could easily be used in DX9 (some people are even porting them) but there was other stuff the remarked about. The point is that while this is the first game to show to be on par with DX9/XP in performance thier statements make it fairly clear that the overwhelming experience has been that it is not on par with DX9/XP. It is also worth noting that to get the on par performance you have to be using a very high end GPU and when you take that with the comments from Gabe that i quoted, and others, I think it is pretty clear that we are just not going to get much in the way of DX10. Not necessarily because DX10 itself is crap, or bad in anyway, but becuase Vista is getting such poor deployment that there is unlikely to be a big enough install base anytime ni the foreseeable future to really warrant the independent development path a true DX10 game must take (going even beyond what consoles can do).
SP1 will help Vista out alot but with the delay of it until, it seems, next spring it is going to come to late. vista, and inexorably DX10, is suffering from the same thing that plagues Apples and Linux - it is such a small percentage of the market that it doesn't warrant the attention it needs from developers to break out of its niche. It isn't even a matter of good or bad it is a matter of being irrelevant.
At this point Crysis, and perhaps AoC although sub games typically have less broad gaming market influence than do non sub games, will be the do or die release for Vista and DX10. If Crysis really delivers an amazing experience in DX10 that performs on par (or close) to the XP/DX9 version while offering game critical improvements then many will move and then perhaps a good SP1 can bring others and get the ball rolling. If Crysis delivers some minor visual improvements in DX10 and/or performs notably worse (as I quoted before more than a 10% drop in performance without stunning visual improvement is going to be notable) then Vista and DX10 will wither on the vine as the second coming of Millennium unless MS decides to release DX10 for XP in order to stop the bleeding of people to other platforms such as Apple and Linux. Keep in mind that OpenGL 3.0 is due soon and it promises bigger and better things than even DX10 promised - do a Google for 'ID Tech 5' or check here. John carmack has weight in the industry and is sticking to openGL, and if you want the definition of terrible performance try running anything OpenGL based on Vista for a total abortion. If DX10 stumbles, OpenGL could make a big comeback given the propensity of gamers to hate MS and the improvement so flate in Linux it is not impossible that MS could lose gamers.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
He is a request to the Original Poster, how about you change the title of the thread to Direct x 10 discussion and thats all it has been for the last 8 pages and that now you know Age of Conan runs Dx9 and Dx10 - it wont hurt the sales of the game - right? maybe a bit of clarification that its going to hurt Microsofts sales.
vista takes advantage of higher end PCs, like pushing it to its limits and makeing the computer do what its supposed to do .... atleast thats what its supposed to do. XP doesnt support multi cores if i heard/remember correctly. Or it sees the multicores, it just doesnt use their full potential.
Playing: EVE Online
Favorite MMOs: WoW, SWG Pre-cu, Lineage 2, UO, EQ, EVE online
Looking forward to: Archeage, Kingdom Under Fire 2
KUF2's Official Website - http://www.kufii.com/ENG/ -
i got vista i dont mind :P
Vista isn't for YESTERDAYS computers. I've been trying to say this a hundred times and ANTI-CHange Agent has battled with me on everything about it.
If you can't get your game to 60 FPS in Vista, MAYBE you need XP. 60FPS is the cut off to me, because as many sites will tell you, including Tom's Hardware Guide 60-70 FPS is where the human eye stops telling the difference. Now If your running 2400X1600 something insane like this on your system You'll need 2 8800 GTX's for some of the newest games, but really I don't want to talk about 1% of the market, I'll look at the 80% that are around 1600x1200ish +/- , and this is easy to get 60 FPS on newer games. Vista makes a good gaming platform. I
IF YOU READ what Agnt Smith posted, DX10 offers BETTER TEXTURES, and uses them MORE effiecently then DX9, now this isn't a question of why Microsoft won't make XP DX10 right now, but RIGHT NOW, VISTA is where its at for TOMARROWS games. You can live in the past if you want, and you may be very happy. There will be things that you won't get full advantage of, BUT HEY, you MIGHT hit 120FPS. (Not that you need that, at all.. since you can't see it with a human eye)
There is no difference in Vista's use of multi core processors than XPs. I am not anti change, I am just anti things that are not as good as other things. I don't like Linux for things Windows does better and I don't like vista since XP is so clearly (and documented so) better for nearly all performance related applications INCLUDING games. Give that vista has barely even gotten to 8% of the market in nearly a year I would say the world agrees with me that vista is not better.
As for the future - I doubt Vista gaming will ever reach its potential as it is simply not getting the adoption needed to attract developers. Right now so few gamers have vista that any developer making a game now would be suicidal to design it with anything other than superficial DX10 support. Superficial DX10 support does not warrant the performance issue that are documented with Vista.
Now, all that being said, MS sent word out today that SP1 will be available first quarter 2008 (probably march) - that is rather late but if it has the fixes that are rumored vista will be alot better. However, the damage is allready done to vista's rep and the poor deployment in 2007 and not getting SP1 until Feb/March of 2008 will likely kill any real hope of Vista supplanting XP. At best vista may become a 'glitzier' version deployed in parallel like maybe you see with cars - the common model and hten the ZX one with all the extras. But this is a far cry from being sufficiently deployed to warrant developer attention and the switch to full DX10 rendering path. keep in mind, such a switch requires not only relegating you game to being vista only but also breaks portability to consoles. Perhaps some games would do this if Vista had established itself this year as the choice for gamers but as it cannot there is no way developers will code for an OS in such short deployment - PERIOD (see Mac and Linux if you need proof of this). Lastly, openGL is gaining momentum as it is portable to consoles, Mac, Linux, XP, and even Vista although vista is absimal with OpenGL). I believe the DX10 mess (mainly it being Vista only) is going to drive developers to OpenGL again over time. That is far mroe likely than a DX10 remaining stuck in Vista ever getting deployment sufficient enough to warrant developer attention.
From MS:
The following list describes some of the reliability improvements that Windows Vista SP1 will include:
The following list describes some of the performance improvements that Windows Vista SP1 will include:
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
If you look at proformance of Vista on a single core machine vs dual and then Quad , you'll see the curve is definitly favoring this theory. Vista uses a lot more processor, then XP.