Vista: Aero has NO impact on game performance ?

[robotskip]

thank you Dragon. :pirate2:

 

lord_muad_dib, you should check out that 'features new to vista' thing on wikipedia and watch some channel9 videos, i'll bet you'll be pleasantly suprised when you hear about all the changes they've done under the hood.

 

by the way, it isn't a resource hog and in time with proper drivers and apps which support vista you'll have better performance on the same hardware than on xp. :pirate2:

 

i sincerely doubt no opengl support (despite it seemingly going to be fine in vista) would be the death knell for microsoft, they've had hundreds of much worse things happen in the past ~20 years and they're still alive, kicking and on the uprise.

[lord_muad_dib]

lol i tested vista and it IS a resouce hog.

 

plus the desktop is not accelerated at all(or as it should be), when you move a window with an hardware overlay(e.g. windows media player) from a monitor to another you see the image getting black on the second monitor 'till the window is totally moved. the above behavior happens in XP but shouldn't happen in a truly accelerated desktop(like mac os).

seems vista's desktop has an accerated layer over the un-acelerated desktop that just contains aero candies

 

another example? when you minimize/maximize a window continuosly, the whole computer lags, exacly as it does in other windows version, that's disgusting.

 

now, have you seen the "WOW" vista ads on tv? when the guy shows the 3D task switcher... well.. if you look better, the animation lags!

 

these are facts

 

edit: oops i just realized i've went too far from the topic sorry

Edited February 1, 2007 by lord_muad_dib

[cyclonefr]

I don't understand why you guys are bashing Vista, as an OS, that much.

 

Maybe it's MS fault that good display drivers aren't out yet because they didn't provide that much intel about their new OS.

 

Though, it's still 100% the fault of NVIDIA/ATI if they can't just make a good driver yet.

 

Vista as an OS is a good one if you don't consider the price. The Superfetch technology is a GOOD thing, your HDD will work all the time, but for the good cause, trust me. My laptop with 1GB of ram is faster when I work on it, everything responses quickly.

 

MS only made a display API which is D3D 10.0 and which is a good thing, even John Carmack had to admit DX is something he has to consider for his next game.

 

People who are bashing it and are telling who is a fanboy or who is not seem to actually be Apple's fanboys.

 

Yes, MacOS is a good OS and I DO prefer it over Windows Vista, still it doesn't make Vista a bad OS.

 

That's all for now

Edited February 1, 2007 by cyclonefr

[Sabr]

In reference to the "XP runs games better than Vista", I would like to say that I got a constant speed of 85 FPS in UT2004. In Vista, however, I get a consistent 90 FPS rate.

 

How does that work?

 

P.S. All the visual/audio settings were the same.

[Zealot]

correct me if im wrong but windows vista isnt running just an emulator o compatibility mode for Dx9? because it uses Dx10 right .

Have you forgot this big isue .

All that games that you have named are still running on dx9 compatibility.

 

just to add another factor to the conversation.

Edited February 1, 2007 by Zealot

[cyclonefr]

Nope, it doesn't emulate DX9. It's using DX9L which provides DX9 features within DX10 without ANY emulation ---> so you don't lose any FPS.

[Zealot]

thanks for clearing that out Ciclonefr.

[BlackShadowWolf]

The XBox is a 733 MHz Intel Pentium III with a 233 MHz NVIDIA NV2A. My machine has a 300 MHz NV 25 along with a 2.6 GHz Intel Pentium IV, still it performs much worser than a Xbox. The only reason, I can think of it performing worse is that the OS on the XBox is a very optimized and slimmed down build of Windows. If MS actually releases such a build on PC's, they would give awesome gaming performance.

 

Which what I was saying in a nutshell. The OS does a lot in the background so games wont perform as well as they do on dedicated hardware like the xbox, gamecube, etc.

[lord_muad_dib]

don't forget consoles are working in lower resolutions than a pc

 

@cyclonefr: it's not bashing or what ever, i just say vista is not a step forward imo, it suffers the same problems as older versions, and it's "hardware accelerated desktop" doesn't work as it should.

 

sorry if what i said offended someone

Edited February 2, 2007 by lord_muad_dib

[poplars]

did you ever stop to think that decent driver development has little to do with it?

 

you will STILL feel a loss. something HAS to render the blur effect. and I'm not backing that up because it's basic logic, argue it all you want, you still have to deal with it.

 

seriously why wouldn't we bash vista? I've used it and I've seen very little that I like. I wish I didn't even have to use windows xp.

 

first off, vista took away the file menu, you have to hit alt to get it, which is just stupid. microsoft only did that so they could still have their nice-looking stuff which still doesn't look very nice.

 

vista has better memory management but it's nothing really worth cheering about, I'm sure there's memory leaks somewhere.

 

and since you are an obvious fanboy, get out. take your questions elsewhere like thehotfix or something. bye

Edited February 3, 2007 by poplars

[robotskip]

Why would there still be a loss and what was that random 'something has to render the blur effect' comment ? Developers (Like those behind Crysis) have said not to be suprised if you have better performance on DX9 games in Vista using DX9L and they named the biggest reason being that of the new driver model.

 

Er, why are you going off-topic (Well, even more so) ? YOU may not like how it looks but others do, get over it. And wow, it sure is 'stupid' to have to press Alt, what an amazingly well thought out and convincing argument, way to go there, buddy.

 

So, your whole argument is based on 'I'm sure there are memory leaks' so you don't really have any proof you're just hoping there is a problem.

 

Nope, not a fanboy otherwise like I've said 4092399 times I wouldn't use Apple products, buy them, use them instead of competitors and so on and you need to get the pathetic and stupid notion out of your head that if it looks someone is being somewhat positive of Microsoft that they are a 'fanboy' - maybe more people will respect what you say and actually think you have a clue. Oh, it also makes your argument look desperate.

 

Oh yeah, 1 last thing, you might want to read Dragon's post where he says someone should be allowed to make a thread/post without being insulted and if you don't like it, don't freaking post, no one is forcing you to.

Edited February 5, 2007 by robotskip

[iMaurice]

Nope, not a fanboy otherwise like I've said 4092399 times I wouldn't use Apple products, buy them, use them instead of competitors and so on and you need to get the pathetic and stupid notion out of your head that if it looks someone is being somewhat positive of Microsoft that they are a 'fanboy' - maybe more people will respect what you say and actually think you have a clue. Oh, it also makes your argument look desperate.

ms and apple fanboy then?

[robotskip]

Haha, just not a fanboy for anything.. well, maybe Westwood and Cavedog but both of those companies (Game developers) have been gone for a long time.

 

So many people have this weird need to label everyone as a fanboy for something. o_0

[Forceman]

Well lets seen now, Aero is actually running it is NOT turned off when playing games. The question is how much more ram does aero take because Vista takes up alot more ram and game performance does suffer, trust me I've tried it with 768Mb ram and it's painful.

[MadDoggyca]

I don;t knwo aobut u but I gained like 10% faster gamming on Vista FSX comes to mined.

 

on a

 

amd 3200+ 64

2gig ram

180gig HD

8.1SOund

256mb pci-e ati x700

 

Vista Ultmita 64

 

yep an way faster then the xp pro 32 oh and not a sigle blue screen sice leacked in nov 06... and no format ether.... stable fast and sexy looking.....and I guility I a huge fan boy of Vista next to OSX 10.5.0 Leaks......can;t say much for lin-sucks.... I mean linux>>>cough

 

and yes the UNIX kernal is way better then the rip off linux kernal....

Edited February 6, 2007 by MadDoggyca

[Forceman]

I don;t knwo aobut u but I gained like 10% faster gamming on Vista FSX comes to mined.

 

on a

 

amd 3200+ 64

2gig ram

180gig HD

8.1SOund

256mb pci-e ati x700

 

Vista Ultmita 64

 

yep an way faster then the xp pro 32 oh and not a sigle blue screen sice leacked in nov 06... and no format ether.... stable fast and sexy looking.....and I guility I a huge fan boy of Vista next to OSX 10.5.0 Leaks......can;t say much for lin-sucks.... I mean linux>>>cough

 

and yes the UNIX kernal is way better then the rip off linux kernal....

 

Well your the first one since benchmarks across the board should Vista between 20-30% slower than XP. Not a single BSOD?, lol it's only been out since 29th I should think not. People are getting BSOD quiet a lot, my friend got one when just trying to install GTA San Andreas, so muchb for Vista stability.

[MadDoggyca]

no my RTM relase since Nov 06 hasn;t hada BSOD or a lack in fpeed or performince yet....

 

I mined ya I woulnd;'t run vista on anything lover then a 2.0GHZ (core) 2gig of ram and a pci-e 256mb card and only 64 Edition no more 32 bit {censored}....... if u have vista running on such hardware I would uninstall and and go back to xp..

 

also I won;t tun it on anyhard ware that wazn;t manifactored before summer of 2006

Edited February 7, 2007 by MadDoggyca

[cyclonefr]

You sure do need more ram to run Vista than XP, this isn't new. 1GB of ram is correct, but surely not enough.

 

Though, the thing is the more ram you buy, the more Windows will manage your ram while it won't in XP.

 

But the original post isn't about the ram or anything, it's because everyone around there THINKS Aero makes the GPU work while playing games and thus decreasing 3D Performances in-game. And this is what the original poster wanted to prove : Aero is indeed turned off, except the service dwm.exe is still running and taking some ram (so when you leave the game, Aero turns back ON and eating GPU ressources (which is ok since you aren't playing anymore).

 

So why are you guys so sad Vista needs more ram ? I mean, I'm not surprised, that was the same with every Windows out there. Try running MacOS with 512MB of ram, and see how it suffers (maybe less than Vista...).

 

No, I won't say MS did a mistake on this one because it seems it's nice to say "MS sucks". I used to say so, but since Windows 2000 (except Windows Me which was a shame to them) MS is doing a pretty good job on improving Windows, whether you like it or not...

 

The biggest flow of Windows Vista is its price. Now it's overpriced...

 

Oh, and for all of you who are bashing Aero or even the new interface : turn off the Aero service (and no, you won't earn a SINGLE FPS in-game since display drivers ARE the problem. Please at least try it yourself, I know I did) and put the Windows Classic Theme.

 

Voilà ! You are now having all Vista features without any fancy theme. Content ?

 

PS : again, i'm no fanboy, it's just I can't stand seeing everyone bashing Vista because it's Windows. It's just not fair. the "M$ suxxxx" time is over.

Edited February 7, 2007 by cyclonefr

[robotskip]

And exactly cyclone, I agree with almost everything you said (Except for the price, it's the same as XP except for 1 or 2 things and 1GB is perfectly fine for Vista), especially the last part:

 

"PS : again, i'm no fanboy, it's just I can't stand seeing everyone bashing Vista because it's Windows. It's just not fair. the "M$ suxxxx" time is over."

 

- Be prepared to be called a fanboy though.

[Kenta]

I thought Windows was supposed to kill DWM when you start a game.

[cyclonefr]

I thought Windows was supposed to kill DWM when you start a game.

 

Hmmm gotta try it again to be sure, if so then, no more ram problems so everyone will stop saying "i'm a poor guy, i can't buy 512MB of ram".

 

About that fanboy thing, if i'd be, I wouldn't run on OSX 95% of the time.

 

Both OS are fine, and that what's important. As if you have to like ONE OS, else it's not "right".

[aPpLeFrEaKpEePs]

MS made the device driver model so complex that companies are struggling to write drivers for vista..

 

OpenGL support still is {censored}

Ati has some partial crossfire support (D3D only, no OpenGL)

Aero sucks the PC's RAM

Nvidia SLI dunno wats the status.. (wasnt supported wen i last checked)

 

All games and apps suck on vista.. and this is for me with a 512 MB DDR3 X1800XT PE..

 

OS X rocks

and so does Linux (Compiz/Beryl+XGL/AIGLX anyday better than aero dished out by MS)

[robotskip]

OpenGL support still is {censored}

Ati has some partial crossfire support (D3D only, no OpenGL)

Aero sucks the PC's RAM

Nvidia SLI dunno wats the status.. (wasnt supported wen i last checked)

 

All games and apps suck on vista.. and this is for me with a 512 MB DDR3 X1800XT PE..

 

OS X rocks

and so does Linux (Compiz/Beryl+XGL/AIGLX anyday better than aero dished out by MS)

Ah, you're wrong.

 

> MS made the device driver model so complex that companies are struggling to write drivers for vista..

 

No they didn't, or at least Nvidia says they didn't. So, I have Nvidia backing my statement, who do you have ?

FiringSquad: How hard is it programming for Vista’s new driver model?

 

Dwight Diercks: Vista requires an entirely new driver model for graphics. It moves much of the driver from kernel space to user space. It changes how basic display is handled, and it removes older driver portions of the code that have been there since NT4.0 days. In addition, high definition video (Blu-ray Disc and HD DVD) has a completely new architecture for video acceleration. So it is not hard to program for the Vista driver model, its just different than Windows XP. We have tens of millions of users of our XP drivers, so we are maintaining two large simultaneous driver bases, which results in additional software engineering complexity.

> OpenGL support still is {censored}

 

Blame ATI/Nvidia.

 

> Aero sucks the PC's RAM

 

No, it doesn't. The only thing which could be remotely classified as 'sucked' by Aero [Glass] would be your GPU but even than it's not really 'sucking' anything. Also, because of Aero you have more RAM/CPU resources free to do other things.

 

> All games and apps suck on vista.. and this is for me with a 512 MB DDR3 X1800XT PE..

 

Well, according to numerous benchmarks it seems like a problem specific to you. Or you're lying.

 

> Compiz/Beryl+XGL/AIGLX anyday better than aero dished out by MS

 

I don't think you quite understand what Aero is.

Edited February 8, 2007 by robotskip

[Forceman]

> Aero sucks the PC's RAM

 

No, it doesn't. The only thing which could be remotely classified as 'sucked' by Aero [Glass] would be your GPU but even than it's not really 'sucking' anything. Also, because of Aero you have more RAM/CPU resources free to do other things.

 

> All games and apps suck on vista.. and this is for me with a 512 MB DDR3 X1800XT PE..

 

Well, according to numerous benchmarks it seems like a problem specific to you. Or you're lying.

 

> Compiz/Beryl+XGL/AIGLX anyday better than aero dished out by MS

 

I don't think you quite understand what Aero is.

 

1. Your so called facts dont make sense, allowing the screen to be drawn by the GPU dont make anything else you do more useful, it's just better since the GPU can handle it better. Of course Aero takes ram, just like a games takes ram, it only uses video memory to draw the windows as textures.

 

2. Nvidia(especially) and ATI drivers are pretty poor at the moment speed wise so he's right

 

3. Aero is a window manager, just like Compiz and Beryl is.

[robotskip]

1. Okay, if you previously had 1 person doing something and you give his job to somebody else, what is he left doing ? Also, CPU usage is over half of that of Beta2 and Beta2 was almost half of XP (In relation to the WDM or whatever you want to call it) - I think the benchmark was on Extremetech or a similar site.

 

3. Aero isn't just a window manager and it isn't just there to give you pretty effects.