 |
| 63. |
Re: No subject |
Feb 28, 2008, 04:34 |
>U |
|
|
201.66 vs 195.34 is not performance parity ? No, not when you consider the fact that score is an average at one specific resolution and was obtained on a very high-end video card. There would be no measurable performance delta between XP and Vista if there were truely parity. Instead Vista is consistently slower. You are also overlooking the score I highlighted which showed a ~12% drop at the middle resolution. That is a significant drop, and one which would likely be more pronounced with a lower-end video card where the OS would have more of an effect on performance.
The rebuttal is based on one particular setting (which we don't even know what it is) from three possible ones in one particular game. No, all of the games in that review showed lower scores on Vista versus XP. I simply picked out a couple (3DMark 06 and HL2 EP2) since they were definitely running under DirectX 9 on Vista. The other scores could have been running under DirectX 10 so I omitted them. For example the drops seen in the UT3 benchmarks in that review for Vista were much more pronounced than the two games I cited.
By the way, if you want to know what the settings tested were, simply click on the link to the review which I provided in my post below. The only reason you don't know the settings is because you didn't take the time to actually read the review or at least look at the charts.
Then you slept through 1996 and 1997. If anything, the gamers' anger now is lot less than the wrath of the DOS grognards. No, it wasn't! QuakeWorld for Quake was released before Quake II, and it was Windows only (and Linux), and there was no mass protest by Quake users against it for lack of a DOS version. The overwhelming majority of computer users including gamers welcomed Windows 95. Many users were even running the 95 betas before it was officially released. Gamers didn't mind Windows 95's hardware requirements because they were no higher than what their games already required. Quake's system requirements were greater than Windows 95's.
Vista Home is nothing like XP Home. It's almost equivalent to XP-Pro in the new hierarchy This shows it is YOU who clearly has no clue. Some of the differences between the various editions of Vista are defined at Microsoft's website here: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/choose.mspx I suggest you read it. Go down the list of features, and you will see that only Vista Ultimate has everything that is available to Windows XP Pro like fax, scheduled backup, and Remote Desktop. And although it is not listed in that table, just like XP Home, Vista Home is crippled in that it has no local and group policy editing, and lacks full Encrypting File System (EFS) support.
An year from now you'll have given up PC gaming (at least the newer games) or you'll be using Vista. Given how strong Windows XP's installed base remains one year into Vista's release, I see no signs that game developers are abandoning XP for Vista for their games that are in development. A year from now Vista may have gained some marketshare, but unless Microsoft makes some drastic and fundamental changes to Vista and its pricing or releases a new and improved version of Windows, XP will still be the OS of the majority of Windows users and new games will run on it.
This comment was edited on Feb 28, 09:43. |
|
|
|
|
|
  |
|
| |
| |
|
Date |
Subject |
Author |
| |
1. |
Feb 25, 21:18 |
No subject |
Donkey_Punch |
| |
2. |
Feb 25, 21:18 |
Sorry |
Wildone |
| |
3. |
Feb 25, 21:21 |
LOL |
The Half Elf |
| |
4. |
Feb 25, 21:43 |
Re: LOL |
PHJF |
| |
5. |
Feb 25, 22:08 |
Re: LOL |
Frosty |
| |
6. |
Feb 25, 22:17 |
Re: LOL |
nin |
| |
9. |
Feb 25, 22:45 |
Re: LOL |
Jerykk |
| |
7. |
Feb 25, 22:36 |
Re: LOL |
kyleb |
| |
8. |
Feb 25, 22:40 |
Re: LOL |
Satertek |
| |
10. |
Feb 25, 22:48 |
No subject |
Bone43 |
| |
11. |
Feb 25, 23:17 |
Re: No subject |
PHJF |
| |
12. |
Feb 25, 23:35 |
Re: No subject |
Jerykk |
| |
13. |
Feb 26, 00:41 |
No subject |
KilrathiAce |
| |
14. |
Feb 26, 00:41 |
No subject |
KilrathiAce |
| |
15. |
Feb 26, 00:41 |
No subject |
KilrathiAce |
| |
16. |
Feb 26, 00:41 |
No subject |
KilrathiAce |
| |
17. |
Feb 26, 00:41 |
No subject |
KilrathiAce |
| |
18. |
Feb 26, 00:45 |
No subject |
KilrathiAce |
| |
19. |
Feb 26, 01:01 |
Re: No subject |
SacredGinmill |
| |
36. |
Feb 26, 09:39 |
Re: No subject |
Overon |
| |
37. |
Feb 26, 10:08 |
Re: No subject |
Overon |
| |
20. |
Feb 26, 01:04 |
Re: No subject |
Lorcin |
| |
22. |
Feb 26, 01:16 |
Re: No subject |
rocketpcguy |
| |
21. |
Feb 26, 01:12 |
orly? |
Snapdad |
| |
42. |
Feb 26, 12:54 |
Re: orly? |
4D-Boxing |
| |
43. |
Feb 26, 12:56 |
Re: orly? |
4D-Boxing |
| |
23. |
Feb 26, 01:37 |
No subject |
noman |
| |
24. |
Feb 26, 01:45 |
Re: No subject |
Thermopyle |
| |
26. |
Feb 26, 02:42 |
Re: No subject |
Muscular Beaver |
| |
27. |
Feb 26, 04:34 |
Re: No subject |
DI-MeisterM |
| |
38. |
Feb 26, 10:17 |
Re: No subject |
Overon |
| |
40. |
Feb 26, 12:40 |
Re: No subject |
MacD |
| |
25. |
Feb 26, 02:38 |
Re: No subject |
>U |
| |
29. |
Feb 26, 05:15 |
Re: No subject |
Satertek |
| |
32. |
Feb 26, 07:06 |
Re: No subject |
Shineyguy |
| |
39. |
Feb 26, 12:37 |
Re: No subject |
MacD |
| |
28. |
Feb 26, 04:37 |
XP Fanboyz |
dj LiTh |
| |
30. |
Feb 26, 05:15 |
Re: XP Fanboyz |
AcidDrone |
| |
41. |
Feb 26, 12:42 |
Re: XP Fanboyz |
MacD |
| |
44. |
Feb 26, 13:50 |
Re: XP Fanboyz |
dj LiTh |
| |
45. |
Feb 26, 14:54 |
Re: XP Fanboyz |
Thermopyle |
| |
46. |
Feb 26, 17:29 |
Re: XP Fanboyz |
Overon |
| |
47. |
Feb 26, 17:40 |
Re: XP Fanboyz |
Overon |
| |
48. |
Feb 26, 18:05 |
Re: XP Fanboyz |
Thermopyle |
| |
49. |
Feb 26, 18:06 |
Re: XP Fanboyz |
Thermopyle |
| |
50. |
Feb 27, 04:48 |
Re: XP Fanboyz |
dj LiTh |
| |
51. |
Feb 27, 05:25 |
Re: XP Fanboyz |
axed |
| |
31. |
Feb 26, 06:16 |
No subject |
Optimaximal |
| |
33. |
Feb 26, 08:03 |
... |
theyarecomingforyou |
| |
34. |
Feb 26, 08:21 |
Re: ... |
Ecthelion |
| |
56. |
Feb 27, 20:05 |
Re: ... |
shammo |
| |
35. |
Feb 26, 09:38 |
No subject |
xXBatmanXx |
| |
52. |
Feb 27, 15:28 |
No subject |
noman |
| |
53. |
Feb 27, 17:04 |
Re: No subject |
Thermopyle |
| |
55. |
Feb 27, 20:04 |
Re: No subject |
>U |
| |
54. |
Feb 27, 20:01 |
Re: No subject |
>U |
| |
57. |
Feb 27, 20:26 |
Re: No subject |
dj LiTh |
| |
58. |
Feb 27, 21:49 |
Re: No subject |
>U |
| |
59. |
Feb 27, 23:00 |
Re: No subject |
Thermopyle |
| |
60. |
Feb 28, 01:52 |
Re: No subject |
dj LiTh |
| |
62. |
Feb 28, 04:09 |
Re: No subject |
>U |
| |
61. |
Feb 28, 03:36 |
Re: No subject |
noman |
| >> |
63. |
Feb 28, 04:34 |
Re: No subject |
>U |
| |
67. |
Feb 28, 18:09 |
Re: No subject |
noman |
| |
68. |
Feb 28, 18:48 |
Re: No subject |
Prez |
| |
69. |
Feb 28, 21:43 |
Re: No subject |
Krovven |
| |
70. |
Feb 29, 02:43 |
Re: No subject |
noman |
| |
74. |
Feb 29, 05:13 |
Re: No subject |
>U |
| |
75. |
Feb 29, 12:34 |
Re: No subject |
Overon |
| |
76. |
Feb 29, 12:34 |
Re: No subject |
Overon |
| |
78. |
Feb 29, 12:42 |
Re: No subject |
Krovven |
| |
72. |
Feb 29, 04:46 |
Re: No subject |
>U |
| |
73. |
Feb 29, 04:54 |
Re: No subject |
>U |
| |
64. |
Feb 28, 07:43 |
... |
theyarecomingforyou |
| |
65. |
Feb 28, 09:40 |
Re: ... |
>U |
| |
66. |
Feb 28, 14:04 |
Re: ... |
Krovven |
| |
71. |
Feb 29, 04:22 |
Re: ... |
>U |
| |
77. |
Feb 29, 12:35 |
Re: ... |
Krovven |
| |
79. |
Feb 29, 22:01 |
No subject |
[VG]Reagle |
| |
80. |
Mar 3, 05:16 |
Re: toon |
toon |
| |
81. |
May 17, 15:21 |
oto kiralama |
kardelen133 |
|
|
Twitter 
