Let us compare apples to oranges some more. That's what you are doing by paying heed to how direct x 10 performance in Vista is, considering you are running more than just the intended software. What I mean by that, if vista had it's GUI stripped, but still had all of it's core functions still intact otherwise, you would find quite a drastic change with your benchmarks. The simple fact is, because vista desktop is being rendered by dx 3d modules, as well as the game you are benchmarking, it is the very nature of the way windows architecture is that the actual driver performance is lagged a little. For a fair comparision, try running something else that will be rendered at the same time with the same payload as vista desktop, then see how your dx9 card on xp performs. (though I doubt it's possible to do in XP for instance). You are comparing apples to oranges, and while you throw up a pretty convincing argument with your benchmarks, you have left out the very notion that dx is handling more than just exclusive access with a single game using d3d for instance.
Furthermore, when microsoft upgrades windows, it takes the old code and re-uses much of it. DX10 isn't a new thing, it's based off of dx9. It had an extensive rewrite so therefore you look at it as a new thing, more specifically because of the display model architecture has gotten that rewrite but within both sdk's you can find much code that has been recycled/tweaked from previous versions. Just like Vista isn't a new thing, it is the old code evolved into a newer final product but it still has chunks of xp still inside of it, just as xp has chunks of 98 & me in it.
Really..your pricing argument still ignores the $300 price tag on microsoft's flagship non-server operating system. back in the days of XP, XP Pro was top on the list at $200 -- that was their flagship non-networking specific operating system. Nowadays M$'s flagship non-networking specific operating system costs us 50% more (or $300 vs. the original $200). They are jacking up their prices like they always do.
Actually all of my games run on Ubuntu. So far I haven't installed them but shortly I will just so that I can prove my point. I'll do raw frame rate comparisions, though I'm sure I really don't need my regular 150-300fps for stepmania, and my frame rate for counterstrike is still pretty good. I'm on a laptop it is not meant for gaming, if I was really concerned about it I would have gotten a laptop with something better than a crappy gma 950 on it. As far as running programs and using the desktop environment goes, fresh out of the box I've noticed that ubuntu IS FASTER. Windows is laggy and slow. And even the installation of Ubuntu takes less time, even with my lack of familiarity, because XP SP2 takes forever to run through the dozens of phases of downloading updates and resetting before it really truely is ready (that took longer to do than it did to learn ubuntu as a n00b and go through all the issues with trying to get compiz-fusion and the large text and window decorations bug worked out). Based on what I've seen, windows probably doesn't have as good multicore cpu support as ubuntu gutsy has.
Actually vista does work fine on crappy dx 10 cards. Let me clarify things by saying that a dx10 card is next generation and thus is monsterous compared to your standard onboard offerings found a year ago when microsoft first released vista. It had better work fine on the low budget crap dx10 offerings, though what I find curious is how it doesn't work fine on direct x 9 cards. There's nothing complicated about the rendering being done in vista so there's absolutely no reason why microsoft shouldn't be-able to offer compatibility with dx9.0c series cards with aero interface. Microsoft just chose not to. I said monsterous card because by comparision, it needs alot more to get the job done than does linux doing better things on a lesser card.
lol it is still a geeks operating system a bit, but that is changing hence their motto and human themes. It would seem their priority is to penetrate the market which you say microsoft has it's dominance in. Given doing things in linux is as easy as knowing nothing but how to search for things properly in a browser, cutting and pasting, there's still a tiny bit of work to go with regards to making it easier to use, but please re-read my comments above so it sinks in that I am a n00b. I loaded bt2 on my laptop, found out that my intel garbage wifi doesn't do packet injection, which made wep cracking kind of useless which was my reason for wanting to use it. I got it to boot from a thumbdrive, that's about all my experience in linux amounts to. I got linux working faster than windows. Windows just took me all friggin night to configure, and majority of the issue was the sheer amount of resetting and downloading I had to do. I'd be up an hour downloading updates, installing them, reset, download more updates, install them, reset, download more, install, reset. That's a huge problem with windows. It was easy when SP2 was current but once your operating system gets a little old and you want to wipe your computer and start fresh you are screwed with windows. I've noticed ubuntu grabs everything it needs in one shot, and then you are current. With updated distro every 3 months, there's no need to download 12 cumulative updates from over a period of 2 years, one by one, and install them one by one, even though windows updater did it automatically for me, it meant that I spent alot of time working with a buggy operating system trying to get it working while downloading newer software which would fritz till the updates all got on there completely and updater stopped nagging me after every course of updating and resetting.
Originally posted by: soonerproud
Originally posted by: stealthc
God I'm not gunna fiddle with this too much other than to say there is a project for making XP operate with direct X 10 games, and it's not Microsoft that's doing it.
The project to port DX10 is insecure and illegal. It is also having a lot of technical problems due to the requirement of DX10 needing Vista's new driver model. Even if they get some DX 10 features to work, it will be nothing more than a hack. Are you going to trust your computers security to a half-assed hack by a third party?.
Every release of direct X has sped things up, so how on earth can you turn around and argue that if there was a new release for XP it would slow things down?
Anandtech DX 10 Performance
FiringSquad DX10 performance
Do you really need more links to prove DX10 is slower than DX9? There are a ton available if you take the time to use google.
Direct x 9 cards cannot run these enhanced effects period, if they did it would slow them down (obviously), but if it were to operate with a Direct X 10 game and not attempt to emulate these so-called advanced features, it would be faster than if it were to run direct x 9.0c. Or are you saying that they just added to direct x and performed no optimizations to the core direct X library which they built it off of? Mind you there are drastic changes to the video rendering architecture, HOWEVER, it is still based off of it's predecessor.
Who said any thing about DX9 cards? All the Benchmarks show DX10 is slower than DX9 on DX 10 cards! DX 10 cards perform DX9 rendering equal or faster than DX9 cards. This information is all over the net. The fact you choose to ignore those benchmarks is your problem. DX 10 is even slower than DX9 even when you turn down the features in DX 10 and leave the features fully enabled in DX 9.
Video rendering in Vista is not based off of XP. Xp uses GDI to render the desktop where Vista uses DX to do all the rendering. Vista has a completely new graphics engine for video rendering. This is what makes Aero possible on Vista, but not XP. Because DX9 and DX 10 are incompatible, both are installed in Vista by default.
LOL vista does cost more, since when did any XP operating system cost over $200? Honestly those prices you are paying are way too high, I got my licensed copy of XP pro over a year ago for $119. LMAO.
$99 is overpriced for basic crap.
No it does not. Microsoft set the prices the same to the comparable versions of XP. Just because you found a deal of XP Pro for less than the suggested retail or OEM price does not mean you can not find deals on Vista Business at the same price you paid for XP Pro. XP Pro was a hell of a lot more expensive when it came out. The OEM version was $199.
The majority of people buy Vista with a new computer. That means that people are paying less than $99 for both Vista Basic and Home Premium. Depending on the OEM, it could be as little as $25 or as high as $60. While I agree that Home Basic is crap, it is no more crappy than XP Home feature wise and is even preferred by some people because it does not have as many features as the other versions. Home Premium is only $20 more if you buy your own OEM copy and has all the features the home user wants. The difference is even lees when buying from an OEM like Dell or HP. Your "overpriced" rant does not hold water when compared to the facts.
I just installed Ubuntu Linux today and given how it performs vs. XP, I am so tempted to not install my copy of xp on here. It has better eye candy than Aero and it runs on a Direct X 9 intel GMA 950, So tell me, what exactly does Vista do that needs such a monsterous video card considering pretty much anything made in the past year should be-able to run the premium edition? Furthermore I find windows to be a disgusting resource pig. Think XP is bad, Vista is a hell of alot worse.
You are talking to a long term Ubuntu user here. Ubuntu does not perform better than XP. Try playing all your Windows games on Ubuntu and come back and tell me how much better it is. Compiz Fusion Does have better eye candy, but is also buggier than Aero and crashes quite often. Aero is perfectly capable of running on Intel GMA 950 graphics. Vista does not need a monstrous video card to use Aero as it works fine on onboard graphics from Intel, ATI, and Nvidia.
Home users want the eye candy. It sure as heck does enhance the useability of the product. It's great that I can pay $0 for something that works just as well but takes a computer guy like me a tinsy bit of extra effort to install and get running well.
Average people do not have the desire nor the ability to install Ubuntu. Ubuntu may cost you $0, but it does require quite a bit of time to install and configure properly. That is why people will continue to buy computer with Vista pre-installed and pre-configured. If they want an alternative, they will buy the Mac. Ubuntu is still a geeks operating system.
And actually no I am not biased, I've used nothing but microsoft operating systems for years.
Since everybody is downgrading I think Microsoft should offer us support and improvements to XP beyond SP3.
We don't want Vista to be improved. We want XP to be improved, that's why we downgrade our computers in the first place.
Do you like the notion of paying $300 for an operating system? Vista is the biggest crock there ever was.
Microsoft has abandoned XP and is forcing everybody to upgrade to Vista. They've even went so far as to cease embracing solid backwards compatibility.
It means that Microsoft has listened to us a little, but is still busy trying to bully us into buying overpriced Vista.
I'm guessing my thread seems like trolling, spam, etc because it's likely Microsoft is one of your sponsors.
Furthermore I find windows to be a disgusting resource pig. Think XP is bad, Vista is a hell of alot worse.
There's no benefit to using Vista home.
You are absolutely right! How could I ever have determined you were biased against Vista from any thing you previously said? All those quotes above this are so fair and balanced and not anti-Vista in the slightest bit.
I can see Ubuntu surpassing vista with just a handful of bugs fixed, Why on earth would someone wanna pay $99 to $300 when they can get something that'll be just as good over the next year for $0?
Not going to happen until most commercial software and games are available for Ubuntu and it is pre-installed and pre-configured to the same level as Windows.
As for the poster below you, it would be better if 32-bit and 64-bit were the same version. What happens if you have a 32-bit system and you would like to upgrade to 64-bit system? Buy another copy of windows, even if you have the operating system you want on your old configuration. LOL.
In fact, I feel as though the code shouldn't be written specific to how many bits the cpu is, it should be capable of handling variable bit with natively. That would mean that logically it should be possible to use a wrapper to multi-task 4 32-bit programs as if it were on a 32-bit quad-core system using a 64-bit dual-core cpu. When you run 32-bit applications, you are essentially cutting the performance of your cpu in-half during thread execution. The only thing that works with 64-bit processors well, is 64-bit software, otherwise it is just a huge waste.
don't be scared give ubuntu 7.10 a try. Spend a day or two to read forums and get past whatever bugs and glitches you might bump into. better to have a dual boot configuration cuz some stuff won't run in linux very well, and when you switch back to M$ operating system to do the things you can't do in linux, you will find that the whole user experience you got from ubuntu with clean running compiz fusion was better. right now I'm using XP and all I wanna do is reboot and go back into ubuntu.