Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Gameplay Stinks with RTM Vista and Current Drivers

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 17, 2007 11:20:36 AM

From a graphics perspective, Darren Polkowski offers a snapshot of the RTM Vista build and a critique of the drivers supporting it.
January 17, 2007 11:57:01 AM

Is this really a huge surprise? Everything I've read about Vista says that it was built from the ground up to help prevent the unauthorized copying/use of protected files... considering I don't create any protected content this "feature" is nothing more than CPU overhead for me. It'll be a sad day when they pull the plug on XP.
January 17, 2007 11:58:20 AM

Maybe it's one of the reasons why some game developers extended their game's release to the third quarter of this year. Still I don't see much advantage of Vista right now, for gaming otherwise since no games that are coming out that would fully supports it. And the price, oh well, I heard that the Ultimate version is the way to go for enthusiasts for gaming but at $400 and piece, I'm better off buying a good graphics card or a cpu and motherboard upgrade. I'll just have to wait for now.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
January 17, 2007 12:23:10 PM

$400 for the Premium edition DEFINITELY sounds steep considering that same amount buys you a full-blown XBox 360... yes, I know that console is subsidized by game revenue/licensing, but come on... you don't think Windows helps generate revenue via SQL/Exchange/Office/etc?!? To me it looks like Microsoft realized that people were paying up to $600 just for a graphics card to play games and said "Man, I bet they'll pay $400 for this if we strip out features from the other versions" Bastards.
January 17, 2007 12:32:36 PM

The upgrade edition is $250. Ars is reporting that there might be a "family pack" where Ultimate users could buy additional Home Premium licenses cheap. But I agree with you. There's no reason to upgrade to Vista at this stage. And OpenGL support is pathetic, at least from ATI.
a b U Graphics card
January 17, 2007 12:52:49 PM

Great article, lousy OS. And as for the HW driver devs, they better get to work. Though I do like what I see in some of ati's drivers using vista. For them being this new, to have any increase is at least incouraging. Maybe vista will work...
a b U Graphics card
January 17, 2007 12:54:10 PM

No big surprise. Heck, I waited until SP1 to install XP, let alone jump on the Vista bandwagon. Just another reason to wait until Vista matures a bit and gets put through the ringer first.

Given the cost, I'll most likely wait until the OEM versions of Vista hit the market. Bill Gates isn't the richest man alive because he gives windows away, but c'mon already. $400?!?!?!

Drivers issues aside, because I know they are problems that will eventually be fixed, it's the built in DRM that's gonna make or break Vista for me. I can imagine more enthusiasts migrating to linux (Ubuntu has come along way and is really polished) depending on how restrictive Vista actually is.
January 17, 2007 12:55:55 PM

I would definitely give Vista a few months to let the drivers catch up. XP wasn't so hot when it was first released either.
January 17, 2007 1:36:12 PM

Man, those were some TERRIBLE Doom 3 numbers with the ATI card... I know it's not the hardware's fault, but still... the hardware manufacturer released those drivers.
January 17, 2007 1:38:44 PM

It looks to me like way way way way way way way way way too much emphisis programming and effort was put into the feel of the GUI rather than functionality as usual. This thing is very pretty at the expense of any kind of productivity. If microsoft didn't own the government and the vendors forcing it to be the standard they woudn't be able to give this crap away.
January 17, 2007 1:48:56 PM

As someone who went through the transition from Win 3.1 to Win 95 and again from Win 9x to XP I feel a sense of Deja Vu. The earlier transitions had their share of problems as will the transition to Vista. Earlier migrations took place over a span of years as will the migration to Vista. DOS games were slow on Win 95, 9x games were slow on XP. Within a year or so we'll have multithreaded 64 bit games using DirextX 10 - specifically written for Vista and the gaming community will be raving as loud as they are dissing today. In the meantime, feel free to continue using XP. There is no law requiring you to upgrade
January 17, 2007 1:57:26 PM

I'd love to see the benchmarks repeated with an 8800 and the leaked DX10/vista nvidia drivers:
http://www.laptopvideo2go.com/forum/index.php?showtopic...

Why are Toms still using old GPU hardware and even older benchmarks (doom 3, 3dmark 05? puhlease.. ) even for a supposedly DX10 OS?
January 17, 2007 2:05:43 PM

Nvidia's drivers are abysmal and they've only released one update since RTM two months ago.

Civ4 is completely unplayable and I'm sure thats not the only game. I'm actually surprised you had so few problems with testing.
SLI support is in beta

So for now Vista just sits in a spare partition, waiting for the rest to catch up. I really liked some of the new features, but its unusable for gaming currently.
January 17, 2007 2:31:13 PM

Quote:
Nvidia's drivers are abysmal and they've only released one update since RTM two months ago.

Civ4 is completely unplayable and I'm sure thats not the only game. I'm actually surprised you had so few problems with testing.
SLI support is in beta

So for now Vista just sits in a spare partition, waiting for the rest to catch up. I really liked some of the new features, but its unusable for gaming currently.


It doesn't sound like you've tried the new leaked drivers, although I absolutely agree that gameplay perfomance under vista sucks badly (and probably always will) when compared to XP.
January 17, 2007 2:37:34 PM

This is exactly what i was curious about. In a few months when they can benchmark the first DirectX 10 titles, i wouldn´t even be surprised if they ran just as fast on DX9 and XP because of sloppy drivers. :lol: 
January 17, 2007 2:39:14 PM

Quote:
I absolutely agree that gameplay perfomance under vista sucks badly (and probably always will) when compared to XP.


How can you make such a statement about a product that has not even been released yet.
January 17, 2007 2:53:58 PM

On Page 3 of the article, the driver model representations shown for XP and Vista are the same. Could you verify if this is correct?
January 17, 2007 2:54:08 PM

I was hoping Microsoft LEARNED something from those shaky starts. Do they lack the ability to launch a rounded product?
-cm
a b U Graphics card
January 17, 2007 2:57:42 PM

Quote:

Why are Toms still using old GPU hardware and even older benchmarks (doom 3, 3dmark 05? puhlease.. ) even for a supposedly DX10 OS?


Well the only thing that could be considered 'old' would be 3Dmk05.

D3 is the engine on which pretty much all the current OGL games are based, and F.E.A.R. and Oblivion are the two most widely tested 'stress tests' for current modern gaming.

The wide availability and 'known quantity' factor of all of them make them ideal for testing. 3Dmk06 is arguably a good addition, but still keep 05 for comparo. Something to consider 3Dmk05 gives you a tough test, but large enough numbers to expose greater variability, with 3Dmk06 the scores are lower, any differences get muted. Personally I'd rather see 3Dmk01 and 03 added to see system effects as well as just VPU.
Also If they tested something like World of Warcraft the latest version, then people would complain about ATi and nV not having the chance to ensure driver compatability/stability with the new game. There's pretty much no excuse for the titles they picked, if anything the ones they picked should be the baseline for performance.

As for the leaked drivers, reviewers shouldn't compared leaked drivers, only mention that they may exist, and then mention the impact they witnessed, but for straight up comparison, until the IHV releases the driver, then it's not something that deserves to be in a test, this goes back to the floptimizations and magic drivers fiascos of two years ago. With that history, stick with those available on nV's site. If they put them on their open Dev page, then test it, otherwise it's only worth a reference.
January 17, 2007 3:15:14 PM

Quote:
On Page 3 of the article, the driver model representations shown for XP and Vista are the same. Could you verify if this is correct?

I was just about to post the exact same thing...

To the author: ARTICLE MISPRINT! Please check the Vista driver model image on page 3.
a c 362 U Graphics card
January 17, 2007 3:18:07 PM

Quote:
It'll be a sad day when they pull the plug on XP.


That won't be until at least 2011 unless you have the Home version.

XP was a gaming dog too when it first came out compared to good 'ol unsecured Windows 98. Vista will improve with time so no need to be worried.
a b U Graphics card
January 17, 2007 3:27:05 PM

Quote:
Man, those were some TERRIBLE Doom 3 numbers with the ATI card... I know it's not the hardware's fault, but still... the hardware manufacturer released those drivers.


Actually it's not ATi's OGL drivers, as mentioned in the review they are using M$' standard OGL driver. ATi said they'll provide OGL drivers closer to the Vista consumer launch date. If it weren't for the glacial path of business machines, I'd say they'd have at least a fireGL driver already, but considering most of the business and workstation world isn't moving to Vista or even XP from Win2K for a while, it's likely that the gaming side of the equationwill drive the business side even for OGL.
January 17, 2007 3:32:38 PM

Quote:
Within a year or so we'll have multithreaded 64 bit games using DirextX 10 - specifically written for Vista and the gaming community will be raving as loud as they are dissing today. In the meantime, feel free to continue using XP. There is no law requiring you to upgrade

yeah, thats how i see it. people are seeing a first build right now, of course something as large as an OS is gonna have bugs at first, but saying that it will never be as good as XP or yadda yadda yadda is just plain foolish.
January 17, 2007 3:51:14 PM

Quote:
I absolutely agree that gameplay perfomance under vista sucks badly (and probably always will) when compared to XP.


How can you make such a statement about a product that has not even been released yet.

beacuse its actually been out for ages as release candiates to developers and MSDN.
Also corporate versions of vista have been on sale as a released product since mid-december to enterprise-level customers.
January 17, 2007 3:52:40 PM

Quote:
I was hoping Microsoft LEARNED something from those shaky starts. Do they lack the ability to launch a rounded product?
-cm


You're assuming that Microsoft has the ability to learn something, and the willingness to apply what it learned. Too often the only time Microsoft does something is as a reaction to bad news, such as hacked programing causing viruses which threaten it.

Having been in computers long enough to see a few major changes in OS's, I doubt that Microsoft has the ability or interest to launch a well rounded product. Probably its mainly interest. They just don't care about what the comsumer wants, only about what they're willing to produce.
January 17, 2007 4:05:00 PM

My gf is a programmer who recently went to a convention for a Microsoft program in dc (not so much a convention actually, as a training session)...

She pointed out that the reason her company was interested in their program was because Microsoft never gets anything right until the third version of the software...

Guessing that'll probably hold true here as well, may as well wait until that happens.
January 17, 2007 4:05:48 PM

As I suspected, Vista won't be worth d!ck for at least another year. Just like all of Microsoft's previous OSs. At least they were kind enough to not charge us for Win2K and XPs service packs. I wonder if it will ring true for Vista as well. Remember when Win95B and Win98SE came out. Quite a shock that you had to pay for the patch.....de-bugg....err..improved versions.
January 17, 2007 4:53:19 PM

From my experience this has nothing to do with Microsoft and everything to do with the graphics vendors writing crappy drivers.

MS makes changes to the way the graphics system works in Vista to improve functionality and stability - good things

Vista was delayed repeatedly and graphics developers have a very long lead time to develop stable and compelte drivers - good thing

Graphics companies Vista drivers are complete garbage near launch - bad thing

From everything I've seen, what it comes down to is that ATI/Nvidia did not devote enough resources to developing proper drivers for Vista ahead of time. This is not Microsofts fault at all. Save the MS blame for any issues that actually are their fault (like security holes and I'm sure there will be many).

I've had Vista for about a year now through my MSDN subscription and I think there have been only 3 or 4 driver releases from Nvidia in that entire time. That is really unacceptable for something under development that long.

I mean Nvidia develops a DX10 card but not even drivers for the DX10 OS for it?

Leaked drivers? No thanks, I don't touch any software from 3rd party sources in general.

My 2 cents, don't blame MS on this one.
January 17, 2007 5:06:15 PM

Quote:
From a graphics perspective, Darren Polkowski offers a snapshot of the RTM Vista build and a critique of the drivers supporting it.


I'm curius how this is different from EVERY Windows launch? It seems to me that beign on the cutting edge of a Windows OS leads to a lack of support and bugs for months after the release, each and every time.

That being said I rather suspect driver support will improve rapidly once the OS is actually teleased to the public... then again driver sare up to the individual companies, some hardware will probably NEVER work with Vista. *Sigh* I don't know why anyone is surprised with the state of things...
January 17, 2007 5:27:18 PM

My main gripe with Microsoft has been security issues. But I also have been displeased how they released XP64 Pro and then pretty much ignored it after people started buying it. Getting help from Microsoft has been like pulling teeth.
a b U Graphics card
January 17, 2007 5:41:17 PM

Quote:
From my experience this has nothing to do with Microsoft and everything to do with the graphics vendors writing crappy drivers.


You experience with what?
Saying M$ isn't involved in the equation is pretty ignorant. The thing that changed is the platform on which this was built. And if you had any experience with it, you'd know that it's changed alot, even over the last year, and so for nV and ATi this is like aiming to hit a target before it's even left the launcher.

Quote:
Vista was delayed repeatedly and graphics developers have a very long lead time to develop stable and compelte drivers - good thing


Do you think these changes don't affect their work. These changes/delays are NOT a good thing, a good thing would be if the Alpha that some of us saw over 2 years ago was even close to the RTM version. ATi and nV aren't going to be dedicating alot of resources to something that has had so many changes and delays. This is the longest ever period between versions, and it's not because they figured it out and sat on it, it's because they needed to tweak and tweak to get it even close to worthy of launch. And with the level of integration and the new interaction between API/Drivers/OS, changes have a domino effect. Heck considering their changes for intel's benifit it doesn't sound like the graphics side was even finished until the summer.

Quote:
Graphics companies Vista drivers are complete garbage near launch - bad thing


You should replace the word 'graphics companies....', with the phrase "All IHV's...". If you don't think that every hardware company is going to have issues with Vista and their drivers at some level you're naive or ignorant. And let's not even talk about 64bit support. :roll:

Quote:
From everything I've seen, what it comes down to is that ATI/Nvidia did not devote enough resources to developing proper drivers for Vista ahead of time. This is not Microsofts fault at all.


I think your expectations of nV and ATi are unrealistic, and it is M$' faults for the delays and reworks in their OS. You seem to think that making drivers for this new system of integration is like changing a line of code from OS=XP to OS=Vista.

Quote:
I've had Vista for about a year now through my MSDN subscription and I think there have been only 3 or 4 driver releases from Nvidia in that entire time. That is really unacceptable for something under development that long.


Think about that statement, and then realize that for XP nV has had just as many driver releases for XP in that period. Releasing a driver to the public every week makes no sense, nV and ATi release their internal drivers to their Beta testers, the general MSDN populace gets them after they test them and approve them.

Quote:
I mean Nvidia develops a DX10 card but not even drivers for the DX10 OS for it?


They have them, they just haven't given them to anyone who didn't warrant getting them. I think they should've released basic drivers to the public, but I'm not naive enough to think they didn't exist.

Quote:
Leaked drivers? No thanks, I don't touch any software from 3rd party sources in general.


Then you really need to become more important so that the parties in the 1st person will grant you access, until then, you're a n00b on the outside looking in, so stop complaining. :roll:

Quote:
My 2 cents, don't blame MS on this one.


Your 2 cents are counterfeit, M$ shares as much blame for this as anyone it's involved with, and considering the number of changes at this point it's primarily M$' fault for the current state of affairs. After launch then the blame starts to shift towards the IHVs if they can't get their act together once the true 'test group' of the general poipulace starts providing feedback.
January 17, 2007 6:11:27 PM

Sorry to change the subject, but I'm very excited to see what the new games will look like using the new D3D and especially the revamped OpenGL. It'll show those console gamers that pc gaming rules after all! :p 
January 17, 2007 6:59:23 PM

Yeah, except for the fact that RC's were beta, and RTM have made some improvements.

For whatever purposes, it is clear the author here was dead set on 'putting the nails in the Vista coffin' from the get go. First, and foremost, the Vista gaming aspect that is, and was anticipated was the new version of Direct3D 10, Unified shaders, and the lot. However, when the author did his tests, he decided, for whatever reason, to use the lesser Direct3D 9x. That is fine, if all you're doing is a direct comparison of that Direct3d version, but the blanket statement "Vista sucks' is clearly wrong. Just going from given information, it sounds like to me, as though the author tried installing a driver that wasn't consistent with his locale. First of all, Vista REQUIRES certified drivers to function correctly, anything less, and you'll get whatever the OS deems necessary. Secondly, most people already realize, ANY OS, when first released is going to need kinks worked out, performance, and stability wise.

I personally tested RC2 build 5477, and while I did find a lot of good, there was also a lot of bad, and not just in the graphics driver area. Graphics were the least of of my problems with vista (and yes, I did noticed a 2-5 FPS hit in F.E.A.R., big deal . . .)

1) the RC2 security model, I noticed needed a lot of work, and I mean A LOT. The simple "hand holding" security feature was very annoying, although a bit novel the first few times (like your OS asking you if its ok to run a program you just initiated ? EVERY TIME ! ). From what I understand, in RTM, this 'feature' can be disabled.

2) Aside from lesser graphics performance, disk performance was worse compared to XP pro as well. A Software RAID 0 array in XP, which benched out consistently at around 132MB/s, did much less in Vista (85MB/s)

The above two are only a couple of the problems I ran into with Vista during 'final beta'. However, that being said, the OS is still new, and I realize this, that why I participated in the beta program. Vista IMHO is definitely a step in the right direction, and I'm confident with a little time, MS will have Vista running smoothly, just like every other version of Windows. Vista definitely is not the perfect OS, but which OS is (especially when first released) ? When Direct3D 10 games start hitting the shelves, and graphics cards are abundant I think we ALL know everyone will be jumping into Vista as fast as possible.

As for the DRM aspect (digital rights management), it is no where near as bad as what everyone would have *you* believe. Think about it like this: XP enforces DRM somewhat through media player, if you don't want it looking over your shoulder, DON'T USE IT. It's that simple. It is my understanding , that most, if not all of these features can be disabled in Vista as well (although in RC2, I was unable to 'test' this). Regardless, I never had any problems with playing any of the DvD movies, that I own, backed up to HDD. Alcohol 120%, and 52% both work fine in Vista (with the latest version), and alcohol 52% is even free for personal use. . .
January 17, 2007 7:03:44 PM

Quote:

Also corporate versions of vista have been on sale as a released product since mid-december to enterprise-level customers.


Yes and those versions meant for Business customers not for us. There is a reason behind why the version that you can actually game on is not released yet. Also until the drivers are up and running for all the hardware, i would not make any kind of conclusion on a new OS. And that could take up to a year before everything is up and running the way it meant to be.

It is just plain foolish to judge an OS before it's release without any proper drivers. You can rest assured it will be way better than XP ones everything is up and running the way it supposed to.
January 17, 2007 7:10:30 PM

Quote:
because its actually been out for ages as release candiates to developers and MSDN.
Also corporate versions of vista have been on sale as a released product since mid-december to enterprise-level customers.


Release Candidates are exactly that candidates for the final release, companies can't bank on the programming and interfaces in RC1 or RC2 to be the final release. Sure there could have been more time and money invested in the development for the drivers but with all the changes that had been made and all the additions to Vista at the last min the developers needed to keep their beta drivers as open ended as possible. I have been running Vista Enterprise since its release early November, not mid-December. I'm an IT professional, and have had nothing but good things to say about Vista, except for its Vista enterprise licensing server that is still in Beta but that is for another forum. Sure not everything works right out of the box, hell it took me the better part of a weekend to get all my day-to-day apps running, but that's FUN!!! for me….. My advice to people looking to upgrade to Vista is do it if you really want to, you will not regret it, but if your unsure wait till a Software title or a new piece of hardware comes out that is only supported by Vista. New OS's are supposed to be fun (and with Microsoft full of holes) get it if you want it and if you don't make fun of your friend that dose for being Bill's B@$#h. :wink:
January 17, 2007 7:21:00 PM

Quote:

Also corporate versions of vista have been on sale as a released product since mid-december to enterprise-level customers.


Yes and those versions meant for Business customers not for us. There is a reason behind why the version that you can actually game on is not released yet. Also until the drivers are up and running for all the hardware, i would not make any kind of conclusion on a new OS. And that could take up to a year before everything is up and running the way it meant to be.

It is just plain foolish to judge an OS before it's release without any proper drivers. You can rest assured it will be way better than XP ones everything is up and running the way it supposed to.

Really quick I'm running full release of Vista enterprise with up-to-date ATI drivers for my 1900GT and I’m running CSS, HL2, BF2, Guild Wars, NWN2, and WOW with no problems, and I see little to no performance decrease except for BF2. In fact I’m getting the best performance I have ever gotten out of the HL2 source engine, CSS has never been more run to play. BOOM HEAD SHOOT!!!!
January 17, 2007 8:12:18 PM

Wow. <hugs his copy of XP>

Great article Darren, thanks for authoring it.

It's pretty clear that driver maturity is a major issue here, however ATI is doing much better than nVidia. I'm a little surprised that nVidia's drivers suck balls so much.

Either way, i think i'll reserve judgement until nVidia releases its "official" drivers for Vista. Maybe things will have greatly improved with those official drivers...

It'd also be interesting to see how a DX10 card does in vista against a DX9 title in WinXP I.E., run oblivion on a 8800 GTX in Vista and XP and see which one performs best.
January 17, 2007 8:21:49 PM

Let 's just assume that you pick up the Retail release of Vista on the release the date, your code will be the same as the version that I run now. The business version I run has all the game components built in that you would get with any other version. There are feature set differences but they are all based off of build 6000.

It shouldn't be a surprise and no amount of driver improvement or patching will ever make it as fast XP, just as XP was never as fast as 98.

I have found so many compatibility issues with the OS I coined the word undervistamated for those things that do work properly. Its about the same as going from 9x to 2k or XP. In time some of these will be resolved the rest will be forgotten as I move on.
January 17, 2007 8:36:21 PM

Quote:

It shouldn't be a surprise and no amount of driver improvement or patching will ever make it as fast XP, just as XP was never as fast as 98.


In that case i should get a copy of Windows 3.1 because that will be the fastest out of all the Windows Versions out there. I wonder why we are not using DOS still since that should be blazing fast running Crysis.
January 17, 2007 8:58:01 PM

Quote:
As someone who went through the transition from Win 3.1 to Win 95 and again from Win 9x to XP I feel a sense of Deja Vu. The earlier transitions had their share of problems as will the transition to Vista. Earlier migrations took place over a span of years as will the migration to Vista. DOS games were slow on Win 95, 9x games were slow on XP. Within a year or so we'll have multithreaded 64 bit games using DirextX 10 - specifically written for Vista and the gaming community will be raving as loud as they are dissing today. In the meantime, feel free to continue using XP. There is no law requiring you to upgrade


I completely agree. You guys need to just wait for software and drivers. I run XP Pro x64 edition and I'll tell you...it DOES get better. :-) Give it time.
January 17, 2007 8:59:15 PM

Quote:

It shouldn't be a surprise and no amount of driver improvement or patching will ever make it as fast XP, just as XP was never as fast as 98.


In that case i should get a copy of Windows 3.1 because that will be the fastest out of all the Windows Versions out there. I wonder why we are not using DOS still since that should be blazing fast running Crysis.

Because plain old DOS isn't capable of supporting DX9...for one. Get a clue. Windows 95 runs faster on your modern computer than XP does...but that's because 95 is LIMITED IN CAPABILITY. :-)
January 17, 2007 9:16:39 PM

It's an interesting article, and is limited by the limits of what the author has at his disposal which is probably the most damning point.

The title stinks though. Performance and gameplay are not one and the same, and Vista does not magically alter gameplay either way.
January 17, 2007 9:21:43 PM

I believe Darren is either dutch or german... so what he meant was probably lost in translation.

Just a guess.
January 17, 2007 9:25:52 PM

Ah ok - that's fair enough.
January 17, 2007 10:36:46 PM

The author didn't actually say Vista Sucks, he said that the current state of gaming support, IE Drivers, Hardware, and their interaction with Vista AS OF TODAY, sucks. He also says it will improve.
January 17, 2007 10:39:28 PM

Quote:
Because plain old DOS isn't capable of supporting DX9...for one. Get a clue. Windows 95 runs faster on your modern computer than XP does...but that's because 95 is LIMITED IN CAPABILITY. :-)


Uhh, Get a Clue, its called sarcasm. The rest of us got it.

But thanks everyone for stated the obvious that a smaller, more compact chunk of code (I.E. older windows versions) will run faster on machine X than a larger piece of code (I.E. XP or Vista).

Ahh, the things we can learn here.
January 17, 2007 10:51:36 PM

Quote:
Because plain old DOS isn't capable of supporting DX9...for one. Get a clue. Windows 95 runs faster on your modern computer than XP does...but that's because 95 is LIMITED IN CAPABILITY. :-)


Uhh, Get a Clue, its called sarcasm. The rest of us got it.

But thanks everyone for stated the obvious that a smaller, more compact chunk of code (I.E. older windows versions) will run faster on machine X than a larger piece of code (I.E. XP or Vista).

Ahh, the things we can learn here.

I'll be happy to teach you what binary is too if you ever learn numbers. That was sarcasm also. Have a nice day! :-)
January 17, 2007 11:03:44 PM

Quote:
The author didn't actually say Vista Sucks, he said that the current state of gaming support, IE Drivers, Hardware, and their interaction with Vista AS OF TODAY, sucks. He also says it will improve.


In that case what is the point of the article? We all know that it is sucks today since the drivers sucks. Hell it sucked even more back at RC1 because half of the things that does work now in Vista did not work at all. They will release the OS as it is and patch it up later that is the way the cookie crumbles in the PC world. Not just for the operating systems all the other software as well. Especially for PC games. :) 


Quote:
Because plain old DOS isn't capable of supporting DX9...for one. Get a clue.


Gee i never thought of that :)  Thanks man now i got it.
January 17, 2007 11:18:00 PM

Quote:
I'd love to see the benchmarks repeated with an 8800 and the leaked DX10/vista nvidia drivers:
http://www.laptopvideo2go.com/forum/index.php?showtopic...

Why are Toms still using old GPU hardware and even older benchmarks (doom 3, 3dmark 05? puhlease.. ) even for a supposedly DX10 OS?


Your post has made my day. I now have my 8800 GTX working in Vista 64! Now I have some testing to perform myself...
!