Windows Vista for games? Hm... not so sure about this!

[Donshyoku]

Link: http://www.gamespot.com/features/6143883/p-4.html

From Gamespot/Microsoft:

DirectX 10 will increase game performance by as much as six to eight times. Much of that will be accomplished with smarter resource management, improving API and driver efficiencies, and moving more work from the CPU to the GPU. "The entire API and pipeline have been redesigned from the ground-up to maximize performance, and minimize CPU and bandwidth overhead," according to Microsoft. Furthermore, "The idea behind D3D10 is to maximize what the GPU can do without CPU interaction, and when the CPU is needed it’s a fast, streamlined, pipeline-able operation." Giving the GPU more efficient ways to write and access data will reduce CPU overhead costs by keeping more of the work on the video card.

Does this only apply to games made specifically for DX10 (if you consider the legacy break) or past games? I am having a hard time understanding how DX10 is going to be a legacy break, but still be compatible with old DX9 games. Also, if DX10 is supposed to be so much faster, then why are the benchmarks of games in RC2 still showing as much as a 20% performance drop?

I am wondering if DX10 will be a new era while leaving the old era completely behind. I don't want to buy (and may not) a Vista computer or OS upgrade to play two new games (Crysis and Flight Simulator X) if I can't play any of my older games. A 2-title library is really going to be a sack for Vista gaming.

[deepwave]

Knowing how Microsoft works, old games will work under Vista. Microsoft's insistence and work on backward compatibility is legendary. So unless hell froze over, or a stable stringlet hit Redmond, games using older libraries will work.

[Donshyoku]

They have stated that old games with work with DX10, but I am trying to understand if Microsoft is saying that they will get the DX10 performance boost or if they will be stuck processed the old way and suffering under the 3D desktop that runs in the background.

Really, I wish they would shut off the 3D background applications and support when you launch a full-screen 3D application. I just really don't see the need for this. Compiz/Metacity switching from the notification area is a great idea, I wish Microsoft would integrate a quick enable/disable feature in Vista for the gamers.

[SoloSalsa]

Knowing how Microsoft works, old games will work under Vista. Microsoft's insistence and work on backward compatibility is legendary. So unless hell froze over, or a stable stringlet hit Redmond, games using older libraries will work.
I don't think so! Nearly NONE of my Win95 programs work on XP. Even with the 'run in 95 compatibility'. And they were Sierra titles (kinda wasa big brand, fizzled out by WinME). IMO, Windows software (not the OS, but applications) is forced to be backward-compatible, the hardware is forward-compatible. And since I frequently needed it the other-way round, it pissed the heck out of me.

[Old Pink]

It takes 512mb of RAM just to RUN Vista alone, which means a gamer's system will be looking to have pretty amazing specifications to get some high end games running.

[BigLebowski]

oldpink.. i have two gigs.. so i can get the best out of the games. :)

And of course Vista will be backwards compatible with Direct x9..



The gaming market is bringing Microsoft lots of profit(No i do not mean.. profits from games like Age Of Empires 3.. but profits from gamers like me who invest in OS's that will play the wonderful games that are coming out these days) they would not turn there back on them.

[3rdalbum]

There are some Windows 98 games that do not run on XP. Personally I think Vista's backward-compatibility problems will be much worse.

[cunawarit]

It takes 512mb of RAM just to RUN Vista alone, which means a gamer's system will be looking to have pretty amazing specifications to get some high end games running.

Looking at what many gamers currently spend on their systems I don't think that is an issue, I personally don't play PC games because I don't want to spend that much money on hardware, or buy games that are nearly unplayable till the patch comes along a month latter.

I am happy with my XBox now, and maybe I'll be buying a Wii sometime in the future.

I see hardcore PC gamers as being much like serial Ferrari owners, it really doesn't matter how Ferrari charges for a car or if the latest Porsche or Corvette is cheaper and faster. They will still buy a Ferrari.

I have to admit some PC gamers are way cooler than what is available for consoles, however, much like a Ferrari it is too much money for me.

[Coelocanth]

Good point, Cunawarit. I can't imagine even a semi-serious gamer having less than 1GB of RAM. And any serious gamer will have at least 2GB.

[Rhubarb]

Well, having tried UT2004 in Dapper and Vista RC1, I can safely say: Stick to Ubuntu if your games can run in it.

In vista you have to enable XP SP2 compatibility mode to install UT2004, but you can't enable it because you have to have write access (why?!?!) to the media you're installing it from.
So you have to copy it over to your hard disk, then install it. Then delete your UT2004 hard disk install copy.
... Which makes for nice big holes if you're a disk defragging fanboy (which I'm not).

Oh, and for the record, the frame rate for UT2004 in vista vs ubuntu was the same. Loading and exiting the game took much longer and much more disk thrashing in vista.

[hobieone]

i have tried the current release of vista and most games will not install or will crash on start up when tried them so the backward compatibilty is not there. unless the game companies paid off microsoft. as forit compatibility mode it somewhat like fiddleing around with wine or cedega. ea new battle field game that was release last week wont even install on vista. and with a post work around it just crashes.