http://techgage.com/article/windows_...rmance_reports
Bottom line: poorer performance from Vista than XP in games like HL2 and CoD2.
http://techgage.com/article/windows_...rmance_reports
Bottom line: poorer performance from Vista than XP in games like HL2 and CoD2.
[AK]Bribo
If you were a zombie and I had to kill you, I'd feel sad.
IIRC, this is always the case. Every newer version of Windows takes a performance hit on gaming. It is relied on the hardware manufactures to continue to improve performance in order to compensate.
I ran win2k for far longer than most for this very reason. IMHO, Win2K still represents some of the best work that Microsoft has done.
[insert signature text here]
August Knights
Secretary of War
Brewmaster
I remember this being true with XP as well. Bill & Co. have added new graphics features, in particular, and the Aero interface is much more intensive than the added interface features in XP. I'm running Vista in the office and I'm encountering enough "quirks" (by which I mean bugs) that I'm probably going to stick with XP on both of my home rigs until either I get a 100% stable experience at work or until I run into something that won't run under XP anymore.
I'm in no hurry, but I plan to put a removable hard drive tray in my new rig and then just install on a whole new drive. That way I can experiment and build my Vista install without hosing my XP.
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." - Winston Churchill
---
Hustedia.com | Husted Visuals | The Racing Historian