Greetings folks...Through the magic of Digg, I was directed to yet another Vista vs. XP comparison page.This comparison evaluates the to OS's when it comes to gaming framerates. Not surprisingly, XP tops Vista in framerates across all games tested. They tested with two different video cards and I believe two different driver flavors. Link:http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html...W50aHVzaWFzdA==While this coincides with my own personal observations, the one thing that the comparison can't quantify is the perceived smoothness that Vista brings to the table (texture loading, etc.) Lower FSX framerates + Better texture loading could equal a wash in perceived performance to some users. For your comparison pleasures....-Greg

Thanks for the link. It seems like they are trying hard not to dislike Vista as a gaming platform, hoping for possible future driver enhancements or service packs etc, but it's a good snaphot of where we are right now.That site's video card reviews are quite useful since they are one of the few that actually use FSX as one of the tests. It's nice to have real results instead of trying to extrapolate from Doom3 framerates etc. ;-)

It will never be a wash. Anyone using Vista is giving up valuable headroom badly needed by complex, and some not-so-complex, add-ons. FSX is a performance disaster (SP1 may or may not change my mind on this) and Vista is even worse as far as bloatware and performance is concerned. Trying to put lipstick on a pig is just a waste of time. Doug

It is my understanding after following this fairly closely that the problem is drivers for the most part. But the problem with the drivers, in turn, is that Vista has made it *much* harder to develop drivers that perform the equivalent to XP. More specifically, I've read a lot of different bits that blame compliance with Vista's DRM as sticking point in optimizing the drivers for Vista.It's unfortunate if the situation doesn't improve by this fall because I was anxious to see what DX10 would deliver. But if trouble is if you have to take 10% of the top before you add in DX10's benefits, it means DX10 can never live up to what it could have been.*sigh*

> nyone using Vista is giving up>valuable headroom badly needed by complex, and some>not-so-complex, add-ons. FSX is a performance disaster (SP1>may or may not change my mind on this) and Vista is even worse>as far as bloatware and performance is concerned.You are talking rubbish. Vista is far better at managing memory than XP. The fact that it uses more memory is because it is making use of it rather than having it sit there doing nothing. It is not bloated, it precaches for performance optimisation.The problem with that review is even though they use two different cards, both are nVidia and so rely on the same basic driver reliance. nVidias Vista support has been lacking until very recently.