Windows Vista - Thumbs down from Carmack

[Guest Len]

While Carmack remains keen on Xbox 360, he thinks the Vista initiative is bogus, accusing Microsoft of using the new OS's "artificial" tie with DirectX 10 to lure consumers (and developers). "They're really grasping at straws for reasons to upgrade the operating system. I suspect I could run XP for a great many more years without having a problem with it," concluded Carmack. Good news for those content with XP.

[Guest bj00rn]

Wow, and you keep going (Your edits keeps getting bigger)... Well, I am starting to get speechless now... But with that said, I stand fully behind those two quotes you dug up out of context as "evidence" of my seemingly horrible character. You seem to have a very low threshold for what is a personal attack or not (As long as it goes your way in YOUR dictated way obviously...).I'm sorry to see that you think my opinions are threatening your internet forum comfort zone in such a way that I should be silenced altogether. Anyway, I have to say that even with tens of thousands of posts in various forums on the internet, I've actually never before come close to experience such a personal vendetta out of the blue as you are displaying here where you actually spend your time digging into my post history looking for negativity because of a misunderstanding where you chose to put words into my mouth in the first place.I'm rather shocked at the level you're going at this, it almost borderlines creepy at this stage. But whatever makes you feel good about yourself. I guess because you are rather infamous around here that whatever I'm trying to say or trying to clear misunderstandings I'll lose either way.

[Mike T 210]

Carmack is a legend in the gaming community and his opinion in that arena carrys weight. No he is not a god and his opinion is not the last word, however, not only is Vista very interesting, in the fact that the argument pro and con is inexorably reflective of the FSX vs FS9 debate.Apropos, I have had vista since Pre-Beta 1. I've seen Vista grow into what the rest of you will have availale for purchase laster this month and I've been running Vista (Release) since it was available to the MDSN / Technet crowd in Oct / Nov.With that said, Vista is extremely divisive. Personally, I LIKE Vista because it is cool looking and it is new. As far as the other small features and conveniences built in, I hardly know they're there. As a matter of fact, I had a Vista "skin" for Windows XP (by way of Stardock's Windowsblinds) a year before Vista was available to MDSN and to be totally honest...there is very little difference in functionality between my skin and my real version of Vista.The bulk of enhancements in Vista vis-a-v XP is under the hood. Ergo; security, maximum memory capacity, disk access, search, stability, DX10, et al. From an XP end user perspective, 90% will only see a nicer GUI and not much else. The rest will be there but 90% of home users will not know about it OR care about it!This point is driven home by the fact that Micrsoft threatened suit against WindowsBlinds and any site that hosted a Vista skin if they weren't removed because Vista's GUI is what the vast majority of users will notice to be the difference between XP and Vista. The typical end user who sees a copy in best buy will care less that there is enhanced search or security in Vista. Furthermore, if Microsoft let the Vista skin propagate it would indeed cause loss of Vista sales when an XP user can have 80% of the same experience as a Vista user!Indeed, Microsoft also and to backtrack on their plans to release a DX10 version for XP. Of course it is more than possible for DX10 to run on XP, no question about that. But if Microsoft did then MORE lost sales for Vista because as Carmack stated above, he is more than happy with XP as it is and I would surmise so are millions of avid gamers around the world.It is absolutely no secret that game performance in XP trounces game performance in Vista. This is because the entry level requirements just to get Vista up and running is very steep and a great majority of end users right now will find that they cannot run Vista on their current systems in Vista Aero mode, and worse, DX9 game performance is at least 20% worse than XP! (The difference between Vista Basic and Vista Aero is the glass effects, plus other nice 3D desktop effects, Vista Basic is pretty much XP with a new start bar).I have a volume license to Vista, and have activated it on my computer (see specs below), my mother's computer (HP P4 3.0 w/1GB of RAM and ATI X800), my son's computer (P4 2.8 w 1/GB and ATI X850XT) and my girlfriend's computer (P4 1.8 with 512 and ATI mobile GPU). In ALL cases except MY computer, Vista defaults to Vista Basic mode! This is because the OS realizes that none of the other installs will do well in Windows Aero mode and still give good performance in other apps, including games. Now, Vista DID load even on my girlfriends's 4 year old PC however, performance is slower even when running ActiveX controlled websites like Quicken in IE7. In all cases, except mine, all three PC's on which I loaded Windows will need more memory, a new Video card and a new processor...as reflected in the Vista performace scores of each computer which is a 1 out of 5, where my computer scores a 4 out of 5.Next the big question, FSX and FS9 performance is Vista. Again, I stress that I have the SAME version that will be released to you later this month...not a beta or an RC:FS9 - Frame rates are 25% lower than in XP but more than usable. FSX - Well you have seen my complaints here, FSX stutters and has 10 second pauses! FSX in Vista right now is horific!It should be clear by now the parallels between Vista and FSX. FS9 could be paralleled to Windows XP. FS9 while not as pretty and polished and new as FSX, it runs pretty well on your current system and still has legs for quite a few more years. FSX is wizbang, has new features and is brand spanking new, however, the entry level requirements are steep, the argument for moving to FSX is not compelling enough for a great many of its users to make the switch and many experts are left scratching their heads. Still, those arguing for FS9 see no reason to switch and those arguing for FSX see every reason in the world to switch. Interchange Vista and XP anywhere in the above paragraph and the parallels between the two is compelling.At the end of the day, we need to understand what Vista actually is. Vista was meant to be much more than it will be when it hits store shelves this month. Unfortunately, many features and enhancements didn't make it into Vista. Vista has become the "WindowsME" on the road to Windows Vienna (aka Blackcomb) which will be the "revolultion" in the same way Windows XP was a revolution vs. Windows 95 while WindowsME was just an interim release. Unfortunately Vienna is at least 5 - 7 years away.Vista is NOT the quantum jump we saw from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95, nor the jump we saw from Windows 95 to Windows XP. The new GUI and DX10 will be the only reason many will switch to Vista...but many will NOT move to Vista and that will be a problem.Game developers are starting to code for DX10. To run a DX10 game you need Vista. Many will refuse to move to Vista...therefore lost sales will be a reality and many developers will end up releasing DX9 / DX10 games so that they can address the XP as well as the Vista market. Is that scary or what? Plug FSX and FS9 above and again, we see an intersting parallel! Developers in the FS world are stuck releasing both FS9 and FSX titles because so many have refused to move to FSX and to stave off lost sales, BOTH groups of users are now being addressed. With the exception of Cloud9, not too many other developers are releasing FSX only titles! In any respect, Vista is what it is - just like FSX is what it is. I am betting that in a few years the paradigm will shift over to Vista as technology catches up to provide peak performance and the gap is filled. Again, the parallel: technology will catch up to FSX. The only break from the parallel is that the Aces team will have to drag FSX kicking and screaming to take advantage of multi-core and DX10 to make that happen whereas Vista has that capability and scalabiity built in.The road ahead will be turbulent and the bitter feud between Vista / XP and FS9 / FSX is unavoidable. For me, I am keeping Vista because I like it and it performs well on my system. FSX is being fixed so I would assume that a year from now FS9 will be a thing of the past. Again, plug FS9, FSX, Vista and XP anywhere in that sentence!

[Guest JIMJAM]

Mike,That was well written,on topic,detailed,informative and did not flame anybody.What in the world were you thinking?:-lol

[Mike T 210]

:-lol, I must be getting old!

[W2DR 1,860]

I agree, Thanks Mike. It's nice to see something posted regarding Vista that's both meaningful and helpful. Doug

[McCrash 3]

Gee I wonder if Vista and Dx10 are being developed to screw OpenGL.Didn't they kill Glide?!

[AWACS 12]

>>But please guys stop the personal attacks. I've been the victim of personal attacks countless times, here on avsim but nowhere else, and never are those threads pulled and it really does bring down the atmosphere here at Avsim.<

[Mike T 210]

I don't know if I'd use the word "screw" rather Microsoft seeks to maintain its competitive advantage over OpenGL. OpenGL is a competing technology to DX10 and it's the smart business move from a revenue standpoint. If OpenGL falls to the wayside in the process, so be it, but that is hardpressed to happen since OpenGL is intrinsic to the extremely popular MacOS.To take it one step further, one of the biggest threats to the Windows franchise is Apple's OS (no, not Linux). OS X is extremely popular and has helped the Mac steal millions of users from Microsoft. Apple is so confident in their MAC line that they have their "I am a Mac and I am a PC" commercials blasting Microsoft/Intel at every turn (and I find them absolutely hilarious because they are based, for the most part, in fact - but I'm not switching since there is no MSFS for Mac!). In any respct, my brother is a big Mac user because he is a graphics artist and his first comment on seeing Vista is how much it reminds him of Apples's OSX. This too his a backbone comment to many who are familiar with both OS's.Vista and DX10 is aimed at OpenGL as well as the MAC OS. Nothing unfair there but just Microsoft trying to get some market share back from Apple.*edited for content*

[DescendDescend 25]

MikeI read with interest your comments (because they are always worth a read) .I was gearing up to install Vista on release based on your comments here: http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=sho...ing_type=searchI just wondered whether your view has changed and why?Edit for speeling.

[Mike T 210]

Unfortunately the initial elation wore off and after a few more months of testing in all flight regimes, it was not to be.Since I don't have WindowsXP on any of my computers at home, I cannot comment on what performance I would have gotten under XP...might well be great, but I'm not letting one game dictate my OS choices especially when I have an alternative.With that said, after the initial elation wore off I found performance to be abysmal in the majority of areas and flight situations. Pauses lasting more than 10 seconds, stuttering, textures reloading and blurring, tweaks that have no effect, et al.These could be alleviated if I turn all AI off, all autogen off, ground and ship traffic very low, etc, but what am I left with then? Each time I've gone back to try FSX "one more time" its been a lesson in frustration where I don't even wait the 5 minutes for FSX to shut down and I just reboot the computer.Again, this is undoubtedly a Vista / FSX issue since performance under Vista is already worse than XP AND with FSX needing every ounce of power out of XP, it can least afford a 25-50% drop as experienced in Vista across all games. If people are happy with 10-25fps on average in FSX/Windows XP and you cut that by as much as half then average FPS of 5 - 17 makes FSX under Vista unthinkable.All I can say is that until you have a compelling reason to move to Vista and hope to run FSX, don't do it until Aces comes out with their series of patches. If you find that FSX under XP works for you RUN WITH IT and don't look back! For me, I've already ported all of my things over to Vista and have no intention of redoing everything. I made the decision to move to Vista when Microsoft touted FSX as a Vista flagship product. Unfortunately, it was not meant to be right now so all I can do is sit and wait until Aces does their magic and hope the magic is strong enough to at least get a little enjoyment out of FSX.Sorry to rant on there...FSX has its problems but I think that there are compromises so long as you are running on XP. Through Vista into the mix and the only compromise is whether you smash your head on the desk or bang it against the wall! :-lol*EDIT* I wanted to add that Vista and FS9 causes a performance decrease too, however, since FS9 performs well on newer computers the decrease from 75 fps to 50 fps, on average, is acceptable. Performance is heavy areas such as New York with add-on KEWR, KLGA, KJFK in heavy overcast and 100% AI can get down to 10-15fps. Again this is acceptable (not preferable) but given the same Vista / FSX scenario in default NY with 100% AI, frames are between 5 FPS and 1 frame every few seconds. I'm convinced that Vista is the issue not so much as FSX at this point, but FSX leaves VERY little room for performance degredation so I again stress (beg), if you are okay with the compromises that FSX demands just under XP, stick with it. With Vista and FSX I've found to cause the following side effects: Buising, severe headaches, uncontrolled muscle movements, diarrhea, spontaneous crying, depression, nausea, vomiting, sponteanous combustion, irregular heartbeat, stroke and kidney failure.

[remilton 66]

Certainly a significant portion overhead and performance degradation in Vista might be attributed to the DRM encryption and checking system integrated into the OS.The following links are pod casts of Leo Laporte (TechTV), and Steve Gibson (author of SpinRite) as they explain what is going on under the radar to Windows Vista. Fascinating info for any who are curious about the more technical aspects Vista pc operation.http://www.grc.com/SecurityNow.htm#73http://www.grc.com/SecurityNow.htm#74Ron

[neil0311 366]

>John Carmack, one of the most distinguished characters within>the gaming development community & creator of several>revolutionary graphics engines, puts Windows Vista in its>place...>>http://www.joystiq.com/2007/01/11/carmack-...ing-initiative/> What is it they say about opinions? Everyone has one, just like ....

[neil0311 366]

>Well I have a test rig with Vista running and it delivers>about 50% the performance of XP, both with FSX and FS9.>Especially Visa+FSX I cannot get to run smooth anyhwere, even>with minimum configuration, no AI stuff etc. So I can only>hope there will be some major developments before the release>:) Maybe they just delay it until the proper hardware comes>along. >If you're getting 50% the performance of XP with any version of Vista, doing anything, then you have some kind of issue that is not the fault of the OS...i.e, bad hardware, bad drivers, etc.

[Guest bj00rn]

Reading your post I realize that with FSX, Vista AND DX10 with added graphical features it's going pretty tough to run this scenario on probably any PC from 2007 and down, maybe even up to high end 2008 PCs. I for one don't even know if I'll bother upgrading my PC until well into 2008 for FSX/Vista/DX10. I have much fun with FSX now though, but the thing is, and now I'm in danger of repeating the same old; I guess we really need that multicore support... Or perhaps the processor industry will surprise us with faster single cores... I don't know... I suppose I'm digressing a bit.