Or so the article reads:-VISTA gaming will be 10 to 15 per cent slower than XP .MICROSOFT is telling its selected gaming industry chaps that gaming under Vista will be ten to fifteen per cent slower than XP....More:-http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34915

"We are preparing to check this claim...."Now that is fine journalism.

haha nobody will upgrade then. i certainly wont. i may dual boot at some point whenever dx10 games grace us but until then forget about it. gamers will shun this OS and it will be known as a bloated pig. im having flashbacks to windows ME :(funny how they are just telling us this now. ohh btw guys any games you run will run 15% slower because our OS is bloated *cough*, our bad. cant wait to ask our MS rep about this. i still just refuse to believe that microsoft would release an os that runs things slower and I will reserve judgment until i see it for myself or hear it from our rep's mouth.

I figured the resident memory footprint of the desktop would be a bloated mess with all this useless eyecandy. I like eyecandy in my games, but I want my OS to be *functional* first. That's why the first thing I did with XP was to get rid of the hokey theme and switch it to classic. Hopefully that'll be possible with Vista. I'm also predicting a utility like Ken Salter's FS Start will be much needed to close all the garbage processes before running FS, or any other game for that matter.It's funny how one of the biggest complaints I used to hear from clients when I was a service technician was the garbage OEMs like Dell, Compaq, etc., loaded into proprietary systems. It seems like Windows itself is turning into that same kind of monster. Don't get me wrong, I like progress as much as the next guy, but I'd really like it if, along with their Home and Professional versions, they'd release "Windows Vista Lite: Now with less superficial blingbling!"

Ms is ridiculous.I love my macbook.

I wouldn't worry about it too much. Some schoolie will find a way to get DX10 running on XP and we'll be right :-lol

http://www.flightsim.com/cgi/kds?$=main/notams06/fsx0104.htmhttp://fsinsider.com/articles/FSX_Press_Release.htm (click on 300k and skim forward to 30:40)

I take all the news from the Inquirer with a grain of salt, as they have a history of starting rumours that proved to be untrue. On the other hand, Microsoft did change an important thing with the praphics are handeled: they moved the videodriver out of the kernel. Somewhere in the past, the graphics driver was moved there because of speed, but at a cost of overal stability. I am told that with previous versions of Windows, most system crashes were caused by bugs in graphics drivers that caused the entire system to hang. By moving the driver out of the kernel mode, a crash from the driver doesn't hang up the system. Vista should detect the crash and restart the driver, while the system keeps running.My 2 cents.Allard.

Isn't this essentially what happened when we went from Windows 9x to Win XP? If I recall, I think it even did that when when from DOS to Win 9x.Go Linux, go FlightGear.

I wouldn't take that article too seriously.I think Vista and DX10 will be the most effecient platform for games to run.

>>I wouldn't take that article too seriously.>>I think Vista and DX10 will be the most effecient platform for>games to run.>>Not if you compare like-for-like with hardware. But you can't do sucha comparison, as no current hardware will run FSX with Vista and DX10. So really the discussion is pretty meaningless. No-one surely will install Vista and expect a pre-patched FSX to run faster under DX9? For the money, keep the XP and upgrade hardware, thats what will get you better results.Vista as a better gaming engine with existing titles? That isn't going to happen either, thats clear already. We're at RC2 now and it hasn't happened with any DX9-based game so far, AFAIK. 10-15% dowen seems about right, given the extra `juice` that OS is going to pull from the RAM, the processor and the hard drive just to give you something to see. The ACES team have trotted out platitudes like `optimised for Vista` without ever explaining whether they mean a pre-patched DX9 FSX, or a post-upgrade DX10 version. If it does work better under Vista/DX9, then now would be a good time to explain how? As it is, I think you have to look carefully at how much Windows Vista is going to cost, and its implications for the other software and hardware on your computer before you even think about the performance of FSX. Allcott

I think we should wait and see.DirectX 10 has been re-designed in many aspects to previous versions of DirectX. And from what I have read so far, the way it has been designed this time, should give us a good amount of performance increase and more graphical features.Also, Nvidia is launching a DirectX 10 graphics card. And more will follow soon. For these cards to run best, we will also need to upgrade to Vista, as DirectX 10 will not be available on Windows XP.Imagine if someone is still on Windows 98 and DirectX 7, and refuses to upgrade to a newer platform. That person isn't going to be able to enjoy what the new technology offers, in terms of features and performance. Even if they upgrade the hardware.At some point most of us will make a move to the new platform. I am ready to make that move soon.