Vista takes gaming performance hit

[Quinton McLeod]

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
I'm showing evidence that the FiringSquad's benchmarks are wrong. They are the only ones showing gains in Vista while everyone else is not. It's as plan as day.

For argument's sake, let's compare the benchmarks that are comparable.

Battlefield 2 (1600x1200x32, 4xAA 8xAF) X1950 XTX
FiringSquad: XP 55, Vista 62.8
Tom's: NA
PC Perspective: XP 95.6, Vista 95.7

Call of Duty 2 (1600x1200x32, 4xAA 8xAF) X1950 XTX
FiringSquad: XP 47.9, Vista 46.6
Tom's: XP 84.6, Vista 83.0 (1280x960x32)
PC Perspective: XP 47.1, Vista 47.1

FEAR (1600x1200x32, 4xAA 8xAF) X1950 XTX
FiringSquad: XP 58, Vista 52
Tom's: XP 149.2, Vista 144.6 (1280x960x32)
PC Perspective: XP 56.6, Vista 35.7

Yeah, "plain as day". :roll: The only drastic inconsistency I see is PC Perspective's FEAR benchmarks. All of the other benchmarks validate FiringSquad's numbers.

Are you crazy?

The first 2 games are CPU intensive games that don't show much. Benchmarks usually show those to examine how well a CPU runs. Games such as Fear, Farcry, Oblivion etc. are better comparisons for what you're trying to do. The last one you shown, Fear, is proof of that.

 

[Mem]

I like the interview FiringSquad did with Nvidia's Dwight Diercks.

Dwight Diercks: Optimizing drivers for any new operating system is a key focus for a core team of software engineers here at NVIDIA. We focused first on implementing the major driver model architectural changes in Windows Vista without focusing solely on performance, and that?s why our initial drivers are slower on some applications compared to Windows XP. Now, we are making sure performance optimizations are at the top of our list. We expect to deliver frequent driver updates over the next few months that will show strides in performance for top 3D applications and games

.


Link.

However which way you look at it Vista initial drivers are very good for a new OS,lot of people forget how bad XP drivers were in the beginning.

In my experience I find Vista to be smooth in gaming.

 

[Doom Machine]

dunno what hardware your running but vista ultimate games work great on my machine, even oblivion gets the same fps it did on xp, its a bit higher on some games
some are experience driver problems, i'm using v 7.xx that comes from windows update,thier flaweless, on my rig anyway

 

[Quinton McLeod]

Originally posted by: Mem
I like the interview FiringSquad did with Nvidia's Dwight Diercks.

Dwight Diercks: Optimizing drivers for any new operating system is a key focus for a core team of software engineers here at NVIDIA. We focused first on implementing the major driver model architectural changes in Windows Vista without focusing solely on performance, and that?s why our initial drivers are slower on some applications compared to Windows XP. Now, we are making sure performance optimizations are at the top of our list. We expect to deliver frequent driver updates over the next few months that will show strides in performance for top 3D applications and games

.


Link.

However which way you look at it Vista initial drivers are very good for a new OS,lot of people forget how bad XP drivers were in the beginning.

In my experience I find Vista to be smooth in gaming.

I expected this. However, converting to Linux now is a bit too soon. It's better that others wait until all the bugs have been ironed out.

 

[InlineFive]

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Originally posted by: Mem
I like the interview FiringSquad did with Nvidia's Dwight Diercks.

Dwight Diercks: Optimizing drivers for any new operating system is a key focus for a core team of software engineers here at NVIDIA. We focused first on implementing the major driver model architectural changes in Windows Vista without focusing solely on performance, and that?s why our initial drivers are slower on some applications compared to Windows XP. Now, we are making sure performance optimizations are at the top of our list. We expect to deliver frequent driver updates over the next few months that will show strides in performance for top 3D applications and games

.


Link.

However which way you look at it Vista initial drivers are very good for a new OS,lot of people forget how bad XP drivers were in the beginning.

In my experience I find Vista to be smooth in gaming.

I expected this. However, converting to Linux now is a bit too soon. It's better that others wait until all the bugs have been ironed out.

If you expected this then why are you making such a fuss over it? And what does Linux have to do with it?

 

[Beelziboss]

This is also why you dont buy new OS's at launch.

I mean are we serious. I cant beleive what I have read in here. Is this everyones first rodeo?? We have and never will get results now. Its just not how it works. If you buy Vista now, you should automatically be prepared for this..and in fact I think overrall this is a much smoother release than in the past. You guys think this is bad. Going from 95 to 98 was no cakewalk. lets get real and be patient.

 

[Quinton McLeod]

Originally posted by: InlineFive

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Originally posted by: Mem
I like the interview FiringSquad did with Nvidia's Dwight Diercks.

Dwight Diercks: Optimizing drivers for any new operating system is a key focus for a core team of software engineers here at NVIDIA. We focused first on implementing the major driver model architectural changes in Windows Vista without focusing solely on performance, and that?s why our initial drivers are slower on some applications compared to Windows XP. Now, we are making sure performance optimizations are at the top of our list. We expect to deliver frequent driver updates over the next few months that will show strides in performance for top 3D applications and games

.


Link.

However which way you look at it Vista initial drivers are very good for a new OS,lot of people forget how bad XP drivers were in the beginning.

In my experience I find Vista to be smooth in gaming.

I expected this. However, converting to Linux now is a bit too soon. It's better that others wait until all the bugs have been ironed out.

If you expected this then why are you making such a fuss over it? And what does Linux have to do with it?

Sorry, I was replying to two different threads. I meant Vista.

 

[Markbnj]

I'm not slamming Vista presently. I'm saying that Vista may not be the gaming platform of choice at this moment. It's best to wait an additional 6 months.

If that was your only point then you made it quite a long time ago. I don't know who "you people" are, but I doubt any of them would disagree with you. It's a brand new operating system. If gaming is your primary concern, then you're certainly better off either sticking with XP or dual booting for the time being.

 

[Quinton McLeod]

Originally posted by: Markbnj

I'm not slamming Vista presently. I'm saying that Vista may not be the gaming platform of choice at this moment. It's best to wait an additional 6 months.

If that was your only point then you made it quite a long time ago. I don't know who "you people" are, but I doubt any of them would disagree with you. It's a brand new operating system. If gaming is your primary concern, then you're certainly better off either sticking with XP or dual booting for the time being.

Often times I create threads to inform people.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
I'm showing evidence that the FiringSquad's benchmarks are wrong. They are the only ones showing gains in Vista while everyone else is not. It's as plan as day.

For argument's sake, let's compare the benchmarks that are comparable.

Battlefield 2 (1600x1200x32, 4xAA 8xAF) X1950 XTX
FiringSquad: XP 55, Vista 62.8
Tom's: NA
PC Perspective: XP 95.6, Vista 95.7

Call of Duty 2 (1600x1200x32, 4xAA 8xAF) X1950 XTX
FiringSquad: XP 47.9, Vista 46.6
Tom's: XP 84.6, Vista 83.0 (1280x960x32)
PC Perspective: XP 47.1, Vista 47.1

FEAR (1600x1200x32, 4xAA 8xAF) X1950 XTX
FiringSquad: XP 58, Vista 52
Tom's: XP 149.2, Vista 144.6 (1280x960x32)
PC Perspective: XP 56.6, Vista 35.7

Yeah, "plain as day". :roll: The only drastic inconsistency I see is PC Perspective's FEAR benchmarks. All of the other benchmarks validate FiringSquad's numbers.

Are you crazy?

The first 2 games are CPU intensive games that don't show much. Benchmarks usually show those to examine how well a CPU runs. Games such as Fear, Farcry, Oblivion etc. are better comparisons for what you're trying to do. The last one you shown, Fear, is proof of that.

Are YOU crazy? At 1600x1200x32 with AA and AF, BF2 is completely and utterly limited by graphics. At 640x480 with no AA/AF it will be CPU limited, but not at that high resolution.

Synthetic benchmarks have shown little to no difference in CPU performance between XP and Vista.

The limiting factor is graphics in all those tests, hence the need for better graphics drivers. Why is this so damn hard to understand?

Often times I create threads to inform people.

99% of the threads you have created are solely to misinform people.

 

[Quinton McLeod]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
I'm showing evidence that the FiringSquad's benchmarks are wrong. They are the only ones showing gains in Vista while everyone else is not. It's as plan as day.

For argument's sake, let's compare the benchmarks that are comparable.

Battlefield 2 (1600x1200x32, 4xAA 8xAF) X1950 XTX
FiringSquad: XP 55, Vista 62.8
Tom's: NA
PC Perspective: XP 95.6, Vista 95.7

Call of Duty 2 (1600x1200x32, 4xAA 8xAF) X1950 XTX
FiringSquad: XP 47.9, Vista 46.6
Tom's: XP 84.6, Vista 83.0 (1280x960x32)
PC Perspective: XP 47.1, Vista 47.1

FEAR (1600x1200x32, 4xAA 8xAF) X1950 XTX
FiringSquad: XP 58, Vista 52
Tom's: XP 149.2, Vista 144.6 (1280x960x32)
PC Perspective: XP 56.6, Vista 35.7

Yeah, "plain as day". :roll: The only drastic inconsistency I see is PC Perspective's FEAR benchmarks. All of the other benchmarks validate FiringSquad's numbers.

Are you crazy?

The first 2 games are CPU intensive games that don't show much. Benchmarks usually show those to examine how well a CPU runs. Games such as Fear, Farcry, Oblivion etc. are better comparisons for what you're trying to do. The last one you shown, Fear, is proof of that.

Are YOU crazy? At 1600x1200x32 with AA and AF, BF2 is completely and utterly limited by graphics. At 640x480 with no AA/AF it will be CPU limited, but not at that high resolution.

Synthetic benchmarks have shown little to no difference in CPU performance between XP and Vista.

The limiting factor is graphics in all those tests, hence the need for better graphics drivers. Why is this so damn hard to understand?

Often times I create threads to inform people.

99% of the threads you have created are solely to misinform people.

The first two games in the list do not tax the cards they were benchmarking. Those cards were the best of the best from both ATI and nVidia. BF2 and Call of Duty 2 do not do anything to those cards. A game such as Farcry, Oblivion and even Fear do a better job of taxing the card. Those other games run so fast that it would be soley dependent on the CPU. You can tell by looking at the frame rates. Notice PC Per was faster. They run a faster processor.

 

[Fox5]

I've been gaming on Vista since Beta 1 up to RC2, first with an x800xt, then a gma900, then an x1950xt.
On the two ATI cards, Oblivion runs fine with no slowdown, though admittedly I don't have AA turned on (and no HDR on the x800xt) and a max res of 1280x1024. (actually, I think there were framerate problems with the x800xt in some instances but not many, x1950xt seems always fine though)

GMA900 of course I didn't even attempt it, but it could play some games at least.

 

[Karot]

Just to put this into perspective.

I play Counter-Strike Source at 15 fps with all the details turned down.

Cheers!

 

[drag]

Synthetic benchmarks are fine, but they can be VERY worthless. You can do synthetic benchmarks to show that two systems have similar cpu loads, but that doesn't mean that they will have similar cpu loads in databases or in graphics drivers.

Seriously, think about this for a few seconds.

Vista has a newer driver model were drivers are stuck in userspace. Now the reason they are stuck in userspace makes a lot of sense.. they complex things and tend to have a lot of stability issues, so sticking in a kernel makes the system overall much less stable.

Ok.. So now ask yourself this:
Q: Why were the drivers in the kernel in the first place?

Answer:
For performance.

Why?

Because when moving from kernel space to userspace requires a context switch or two. This means that the carefully built cache in your cpu has be emptied of most of it's kernel code, run the userspace switch, then run the driver code. This means that you get higher cpu overhead.

Those 2-3% drops in performance? That is the price your paying for more stable system. That is all there realy is to that. Those drivers are probably as highly optimized as they are in XP.

Now with that Ut2004 benchmark were you had a 32% drop, that is probably due to drivers. That _probably_ will be fixed. (but not nessicarially. Older hardware may have certain expectations about XP's driver model that isn't in Vista and may require certain amount of emulation for adoption, but I doubt that is true.)

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
I'm showing evidence that the FiringSquad's benchmarks are wrong. They are the only ones showing gains in Vista while everyone else is not. It's as plan as day.

For argument's sake, let's compare the benchmarks that are comparable.

Battlefield 2 (1600x1200x32, 4xAA 8xAF) X1950 XTX
FiringSquad: XP 55, Vista 62.8
Tom's: NA
PC Perspective: XP 95.6, Vista 95.7

Call of Duty 2 (1600x1200x32, 4xAA 8xAF) X1950 XTX
FiringSquad: XP 47.9, Vista 46.6
Tom's: XP 84.6, Vista 83.0 (1280x960x32)
PC Perspective: XP 47.1, Vista 47.1

FEAR (1600x1200x32, 4xAA 8xAF) X1950 XTX
FiringSquad: XP 58, Vista 52
Tom's: XP 149.2, Vista 144.6 (1280x960x32)
PC Perspective: XP 56.6, Vista 35.7

Yeah, "plain as day". :roll: The only drastic inconsistency I see is PC Perspective's FEAR benchmarks. All of the other benchmarks validate FiringSquad's numbers.

Are you crazy?

The first 2 games are CPU intensive games that don't show much. Benchmarks usually show those to examine how well a CPU runs. Games such as Fear, Farcry, Oblivion etc. are better comparisons for what you're trying to do. The last one you shown, Fear, is proof of that.

Are YOU crazy? At 1600x1200x32 with AA and AF, BF2 is completely and utterly limited by graphics. At 640x480 with no AA/AF it will be CPU limited, but not at that high resolution.

Synthetic benchmarks have shown little to no difference in CPU performance between XP and Vista.

The limiting factor is graphics in all those tests, hence the need for better graphics drivers. Why is this so damn hard to understand?

Often times I create threads to inform people.

99% of the threads you have created are solely to misinform people.

The first two games in the list do not tax the cards they were benchmarking. Those cards were the best of the best from both ATI and nVidia. BF2 and Call of Duty 2 do not do anything to those cards. A game such as Farcry, Oblivion and even Fear do a better job of taxing the card. Those other games run so fast that it would be soley dependent on the CPU. You can tell by looking at the frame rates. Notice PC Per was faster. They run a faster processor.

Refer to the firingsquad article - they ran the test at 1280x1024 as well - and it had a significantly higher frame rate. If it was cpu limited, they would have had the same frame rate.

The REAL difference between the two is that firingsquad tested BF2142, and PCper tested BF2. Same engine, but 2142 is heavier on gfx. Try again.

Both tested on a c2d x6800. You are wrong, plain and simple, clear as day.

Honestly, you have to READ these articles before you start spouting nonsense, or else you will continually be made to look like a fool.

 

[jedisponge]

I have Vista Ultimate x64 installed.

P5W DH
E6700 @ 2.93
2 GBs of Corsair xms pc6400
an ATI x1900xtx

So far on Company of Heroes, Day of Defeat Source, America's Army and Rainbow 6: Vegas, I see absolutely no difference in terms of real performance. None.

In fact, load times are defintely quicker, with map loads in DoD:S literally taking 5-10 seconds, Company of Heroes and Rainbow 6 being silky smooth, and of course AA not stressing my computer at all.

Just my 2 cents.

The only things I'm missing are complete drivers for my printer, for which HP has released basic drivers for, and logitech G15 drivers. Otherwise, everything's been absolutely great in terms of gaming as far as I'm concerned, as an ATI user.

 

[Quinton McLeod]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
I'm showing evidence that the FiringSquad's benchmarks are wrong. They are the only ones showing gains in Vista while everyone else is not. It's as plan as day.

For argument's sake, let's compare the benchmarks that are comparable.

Battlefield 2 (1600x1200x32, 4xAA 8xAF) X1950 XTX
FiringSquad: XP 55, Vista 62.8
Tom's: NA
PC Perspective: XP 95.6, Vista 95.7

Call of Duty 2 (1600x1200x32, 4xAA 8xAF) X1950 XTX
FiringSquad: XP 47.9, Vista 46.6
Tom's: XP 84.6, Vista 83.0 (1280x960x32)
PC Perspective: XP 47.1, Vista 47.1

FEAR (1600x1200x32, 4xAA 8xAF) X1950 XTX
FiringSquad: XP 58, Vista 52
Tom's: XP 149.2, Vista 144.6 (1280x960x32)
PC Perspective: XP 56.6, Vista 35.7

Yeah, "plain as day". :roll: The only drastic inconsistency I see is PC Perspective's FEAR benchmarks. All of the other benchmarks validate FiringSquad's numbers.

Are you crazy?

The first 2 games are CPU intensive games that don't show much. Benchmarks usually show those to examine how well a CPU runs. Games such as Fear, Farcry, Oblivion etc. are better comparisons for what you're trying to do. The last one you shown, Fear, is proof of that.

Are YOU crazy? At 1600x1200x32 with AA and AF, BF2 is completely and utterly limited by graphics. At 640x480 with no AA/AF it will be CPU limited, but not at that high resolution.

Synthetic benchmarks have shown little to no difference in CPU performance between XP and Vista.

The limiting factor is graphics in all those tests, hence the need for better graphics drivers. Why is this so damn hard to understand?

Often times I create threads to inform people.

99% of the threads you have created are solely to misinform people.

The first two games in the list do not tax the cards they were benchmarking. Those cards were the best of the best from both ATI and nVidia. BF2 and Call of Duty 2 do not do anything to those cards. A game such as Farcry, Oblivion and even Fear do a better job of taxing the card. Those other games run so fast that it would be soley dependent on the CPU. You can tell by looking at the frame rates. Notice PC Per was faster. They run a faster processor.

Refer to the firingsquad article - they ran the test at 1280x1024 as well - and it had a significantly higher frame rate. If it was cpu limited, they would have had the same frame rate.

The REAL difference between the two is that firingsquad tested BF2142, and PCper tested BF2. Same engine, but 2142 is heavier on gfx. Try again.

Both tested on a c2d x6800. You are wrong, plain and simple, clear as day.

Honestly, you have to READ these articles before you start spouting nonsense, or else you will continually be made to look like a fool.

They would NOT have the same frame rate!
The lower the resolution, the faster it runs. This applies to every game and graphics card out there.

BF2142 is not much heavier on the graphics card. It does use the same engine, but it wasn't designed to really strain your card like Farcry and Oblivion were. Sorry to inform you.

Honestly, you have to actually KNOW what you're talking about before you start spouting nonsense, or else you will continually be made to look like a tool (Yes I spelled that right.)

 

[Markbnj]

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Originally posted by: Markbnj

I'm not slamming Vista presently. I'm saying that Vista may not be the gaming platform of choice at this moment. It's best to wait an additional 6 months.

If that was your only point then you made it quite a long time ago. I don't know who "you people" are, but I doubt any of them would disagree with you. It's a brand new operating system. If gaming is your primary concern, then you're certainly better off either sticking with XP or dual booting for the time being.

Often times I create threads to inform people.

You create threads to troll for flamebait, because you're reflexively anti-microsoft, and most of what you post is ignorant FUD.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Originally posted by: MrChad

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
I'm showing evidence that the FiringSquad's benchmarks are wrong. They are the only ones showing gains in Vista while everyone else is not. It's as plan as day.

For argument's sake, let's compare the benchmarks that are comparable.

Battlefield 2 (1600x1200x32, 4xAA 8xAF) X1950 XTX
FiringSquad: XP 55, Vista 62.8
Tom's: NA
PC Perspective: XP 95.6, Vista 95.7

Call of Duty 2 (1600x1200x32, 4xAA 8xAF) X1950 XTX
FiringSquad: XP 47.9, Vista 46.6
Tom's: XP 84.6, Vista 83.0 (1280x960x32)
PC Perspective: XP 47.1, Vista 47.1

FEAR (1600x1200x32, 4xAA 8xAF) X1950 XTX
FiringSquad: XP 58, Vista 52
Tom's: XP 149.2, Vista 144.6 (1280x960x32)
PC Perspective: XP 56.6, Vista 35.7

Yeah, "plain as day". :roll: The only drastic inconsistency I see is PC Perspective's FEAR benchmarks. All of the other benchmarks validate FiringSquad's numbers.

Are you crazy?

The first 2 games are CPU intensive games that don't show much. Benchmarks usually show those to examine how well a CPU runs. Games such as Fear, Farcry, Oblivion etc. are better comparisons for what you're trying to do. The last one you shown, Fear, is proof of that.

Are YOU crazy? At 1600x1200x32 with AA and AF, BF2 is completely and utterly limited by graphics. At 640x480 with no AA/AF it will be CPU limited, but not at that high resolution.

Synthetic benchmarks have shown little to no difference in CPU performance between XP and Vista.

The limiting factor is graphics in all those tests, hence the need for better graphics drivers. Why is this so damn hard to understand?

Often times I create threads to inform people.

99% of the threads you have created are solely to misinform people.

The first two games in the list do not tax the cards they were benchmarking. Those cards were the best of the best from both ATI and nVidia. BF2 and Call of Duty 2 do not do anything to those cards. A game such as Farcry, Oblivion and even Fear do a better job of taxing the card. Those other games run so fast that it would be soley dependent on the CPU. You can tell by looking at the frame rates. Notice PC Per was faster. They run a faster processor.

Refer to the firingsquad article - they ran the test at 1280x1024 as well - and it had a significantly higher frame rate. If it was cpu limited, they would have had the same frame rate.

The REAL difference between the two is that firingsquad tested BF2142, and PCper tested BF2. Same engine, but 2142 is heavier on gfx. Try again.

Both tested on a c2d x6800. You are wrong, plain and simple, clear as day.

Honestly, you have to READ these articles before you start spouting nonsense, or else you will continually be made to look like a fool.

They would NOT have the same frame rate!
The lower the resolution, the faster it runs. This applies to every game and graphics card out there.

BF2142 is not much heavier on the graphics card. It does use the same engine, but it wasn't designed to really strain your card like Farcry and Oblivion were. Sorry to inform you.

Honestly, you have to actually KNOW what you're talking about before you start spouting nonsense, or else you will continually be made to look like a tool (Yes I spelled that right.)

Do you hear yourself?? First you say it's CPU limited. If it's CPU limited, it's CPU LIMITED. As in, the frame rate is limited by the cpu, not the graphics card. Changing resolution or AA/AF settings has nearly zero effect on the cpu power used. So the only condition under which you would get more fps by going down in resolution is if you were NOT cpu limited.

This is why they measure CPUs at 640x480 resolution, to make sure graphics isnt limited, and why they measure graphics cards at high resolutions (like 1600x1200!) to make sure the cpu isnt limited.

But none of that matters, because they both used the same cpu to test!

You make it so easy for me, honestly, that I wonder if you're even serious. No single person cannot be this ignorant.

 

[Doom Machine]

sometimes i envy those who are not "computer geeks" or hardcore "enthusiasts" whichever you prefer yourselves

just think, right now there is an average joe whos purchasing an HP with vista right now as we speak along with a game like elderscrolls and will be just fine, he'll play his game,, maybe run into snags here and there just like every single d@*n computer user ever has since like the 70's, realize thats the way of computer gaming and here we are arguing about how gaming friendly vista is over xp like a bunch of chumps....go buy a console if you must complain

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod

Originally posted by: Markbnj

I'm not slamming Vista presently. I'm saying that Vista may not be the gaming platform of choice at this moment. It's best to wait an additional 6 months.

If that was your only point then you made it quite a long time ago. I don't know who "you people" are, but I doubt any of them would disagree with you. It's a brand new operating system. If gaming is your primary concern, then you're certainly better off either sticking with XP or dual booting for the time being.

Often times I create threads to troll.

Fixed.

 

[drag]

just think, right now there is an average joe whos purchasing an HP with vista right now as we speak along with a game like elderscrolls and will be just fine, he'll play his game,, maybe run into snags here and there just like every single d@*n computer user ever has since like the 70's, realize thats the way of computer gaming and here we are arguing about how gaming friendly vista is over xp like a bunch of chumps....go buy a console if you must complain

I know people that spend all day comparing how well they have memorized football statistics throughout their entire lifes.
I know other people that can identify you the year a paticular Ford Mustang was built just by the shape of the tail-light.. without seeing the rest of the car or being told it came from a Mustang, or a Ford.

Go figure.