Windows Vista - Thumbs down from Carmack

[Mike T 208]

Hi Mark:Thanks for your kind words.A 1: Realistic expectations and the general concensus from all who have been testing Vista and have the final release version is that for general applications (Word, Photoshop, etc) there is no real performance hit. The average difference between Vista and XP in regular applications is only about 1-3% slower. The real hit right now in Vista is in terms of games. To quote PCMagazine, the performance loss in Vista for games is "profound". In games like Unreal Tournament, users have seen a 20-30FPS hit in running on Vista vs. XP. No big deal if you are currently running it at 130 FPS in XP. But as I stated, the hit is VERY apparent when running something like FSX.Also, it seems that even upgrading from 1GB to 3GB of memory doesn't improve game performance in Vista more than a few FPS. No word on upgrading past that.As far as DX10, no one knows. Microsoft says to expect up to 6x to 8x the performance vs. DX9, however since there are no DX10 games yet on the market its hard to say. Aces did make it clear that DX10 is NOT the holy grail some think it is. I guess that we'll have to wait and see.A 2: No one knows what the format for the patches will be from Aces. If FS 9.1 is indicative, I am almost certain that all patches from MS will be in .exe format and will upgrade FSX with very little intervention from you. I don't think you have to worry since Aces will want the patches to be easy for everyone to get up and running as quickly as possible.I can most certainly say that you won't have to play with any .cfg files.Hope this helps a little,Mike T.

[Guest]

>I really had no issues running FSX under Vista... none at>all. In fact I swear it actually ran faster, even though I>was using the very limited NVidia drivers at the time.>>That being said. Look at the wide array of performance>reports across just Windows XP. Were seeing lots of people>with performance issues, and lots of people who are at least>happy that it isn't written off due to being at least>'playable'.>>Just because it sucked on a particular Vista setup doesn't>mean that the problem is Vista itself. Lots of people ran it>under Vista, some had good results as I did, some had really>bad results like you did.>>Anyways, not going to beat an already severely beaten horsie>here.... I think that many people form an opinion of a product>based on only their own experience, even though they only>tried it on one or two setups themselves. Yah gotta take a>good look at the wider averages before nailing an OS to the>wall.>>I'd like to add a note about the DRM problems that someone>else mentioned. I have over 1500 of my CD's on this machine>and never had an issue with CPU usage. If DRM was checking>each of those files, it was a very fluid operation indeed. I>have full CD's on here, as well as about 8 CD's that are being>mastered, and are still in various forms, including WAV's.>(each unmastered CD is over 6GB) No issues to report. Not>saying that DRM works... but it worked okay for me.not really.. the wide range of reports come from people saying "it seems, i thought, it feels, i would suspect, appeared"once you burn and bake all the hearsay with empirical evidence (done a few times) the real story is revealed. i forgot the "i swear" vague statement too.

[remilton 66]

Mike:The full performance and cost impact wont be realized until the new encrypted video and audio cards are installed in a Vista machine.Ron

[Guest Len]

>"FSX - Well you have seen my complaints here, FSX stutters>and has 10 second pauses! FSX in Vista right now is>horific!">>I can picture the forum messages in a month from now:>>"Yes, there are 10 second pauses in FSX, BUT the ten-second>pauses are smoother than the pauses in FS9 ^_^">>:-xxrotflmaoHehehe...

[Mace 1,927]

>you insult John calling him a queen and I bet if we did a>search for posts made by you over the past months there would>be plently of other insults.>Peter, he wasn't calling John Carmack a "queen". He was referring to the thread in general. Specifically, he was talking about how people were making a big deal out of what Carmack said, and taking it out-of-context.RhettAMD 3700+ (@2310 mhz), eVGA 7800GT 256 (Guru3D 93.71), ASUS A8N-E, PC Power 510 SLI, 2 GB Corsair XMS 2.5-3-3-8 (1T), WD 250 gig 7200 rpm SATA2, CoolerMaster Praetorian case

[Guest]

I wasn't aware that the final (what you see is what you get) version of Vista is out yet, far less extended testing on all our favorite programs on it?I know I cant buy it yet! and I'm surprised John Carmack can! however, as we all know, Vista will probably get better with service packs, and its an accepted fact DX10 will improve the breed ... in time :)Simply amazed at some of the responses here :)

[Guest kingairvols]

Mike T.,Thanks for getting back. I noticed your comments on:(1.) "...1GB to 3GB of memory..." and:(2.) "...however since there are no DX10 games yet on the market its hard to say...".On item (1.) My understanding was in XP that 3 gigs where all that could utilized even though 4 gig is (I think) the limit for XP. Agian no real performance increase from 3 to 4 gigs, agian I am no expert, but I thought thats what I read somewhere around here. If I am in error I may need to bump up my Memory from 3 to 4 gigs, what is your view please?Item (2.) I thought the saving grace was going to be that FSX would run better on DX10. But I am confussed from our discussion if FSX is a DX10 game since you mentioned that no DX10 games exsit?I appreciate you taking the time to respond and hope you do not mind my asking these two extra questions, as I know you must stay busy. Thank you.Mark.System:OS:MS Windows XP Professional, Ver 2002 Service Pack 2 Hardware:Intel Pentium® 4 CPU 2.802.84 GHz, 3.00 GB of RAM Radeon X1600 Pro 512MB running a 21/19.6 Sony Flat Screen Tubed Monitorand a 17/16 NEC/Mitsubishi Tubed MonitorGeForce FX 5200 128MB running a NEC/Mitsubishi 18 Flat Panel

[Mike T 208]

Hi Mark:1. 3 Gigs is the most you can use in XP, also you need to have enabled XP to recognize 3 GIG by putting the statement into your boot.ini or your computer is not recognizing it. Going to 4Gig will do absolutely nothing at all for you.I was referring to upgrading memory in Vista which doesn't make much of a difference in 3D games between 1 and 3 GIG. 2. FSX is NOT a DX10 game. FSX is 100 percent a DX9 game, made from the ground up to run on DX9. What Aces is trying to do, eventually is patch the Shaders (and maybe upgrade the textures) to DX10 compatibility. However, don't expect that upgrade until much later this year or early next.

[Pete S 7]

I seem to recall the same basic arguments regarding Win95, Win98, WinME, WinXP.......FS5, FS6, FS9, FSX...., AMD, Intel, Chevy, Ford, Chrysler..... etc...etc...etc.It's amazing how the more things change, the more they remain the same!Yep, opinions(including mine) are like *******. Everyone has one,and they all stink.Thankfully I take everything, I read, with a grain of salt, and never let anyone else make up my mind!So far this strategy served me well, and if I'm satisfied/disatisfied with a product, I have no one else to thank/blame, but myself!Pete S.

[Guest iwantmydc3]

>I actually had a very similar experience to Mike's with both>Vista and FSX.>>Initially I was beta testing Vista and FSX on separate>machines all along. Had FSX beta (various builds) running in>XP and didn't have a huge problem and am still quite in favour>of FSX.>>With Vista, went through all the builds and tech preview>releases. I've been running Vista RTM from MSDN since early>December and to be honest, FSX aside and like Mike, I haven't>had XP on my home machine and will not go back to XP. Here's>why (these are all my own non-scientific observations and>opinions, your mileage will definitely vary):>>The graphical user interface makes XP look archaic in>comparison. It will take a little getting used to; after all>you've been using XP for 5 years. But now I find it very>intuitive.>>The User Account Control (UAC) was not as bad for me>personally as many people make it out to be. My wife didn't>mind it either as it was somewhat similar to Mac's OSX that>she runs which has a similar security measure to Vista's UAC.>>I love how much better the Vista Standard User account is>compared to the garbage that was XP's limited user account.>You can now easily install programs and make system mods with>the use of an admin password on the fly. Very handy.>>The Search feature, similar to OSX's Spotlight, is really>useful. I can find any file, email, folder, picture, song,>utility etc.... by just typing the first few letters of a word>associated with it. This feature alone, after using it, was>almost reason enough to migrate to Vista.>>For me, applications load faster and shutdown and start-up>were also faster than how XP did on my machine, despite the>fact that Vista had about 15 or so more running processes and>using more than twice the system memory.>>On my computer, which is a 4 year old Dell that falls squarely>in the POS category by today's standards, a complete clean>Vista install including a low-level reformat of the HD takes>under 30 mins. In comparison, XP took well over an hour and I>had to sit there entering data at random times during install.>Not so with Vista; it asks you everything up front and then>you leave only to come back about 25 mins later seeing the>first boot into desktop. Very impressive.>>I can go on and on but my point is that I have reason to>believe that many people will like Vista. It's not for>everyone, not right now, for a many reasons. But we went>through the same thing when XP came out and now, for better or>worse, we don't want to change it.>>Having said that, I still think that Vista will shine broadly>only when hardware advance enough so that the system isn't>pushed to its limits merely by the OS.>>Also, FSX ran like a dog in Vista. To the point that, at>times, I was no longer measuring FPS but rather Seconds per>Frame.>>I still hold out hope that with new hardware advances (quad>core, DX10 cards etc..), more RAM becoming standard (2-4GB),>and the eventual release of a DX10 patch for FSX then maybe we>will be discussing which version of Vista is best for gaming.>:-)That's all great Rob, but, please, explain to me why I need to upgrade if my XP system is working well. That's my question, no one ever seems to be able to come back with a compelling answer.

[Guest iwantmydc3]

>Because when most people buy a new computer, Vista will be>already installed on it.>Peter Sydney AustraliaFair enough, but I just bought a new ocmputer with XP pro, which works fine. So tell me between now and my next new one (5 years or so) why do I NEED Vista?

[Guest kingairvols]

Mike T.In reference to: (1.)" also you need to have enabled XP to recognize 3 GIG by putting the statement into your boot.ini " when I go to sytem Props in the control panel it shows 3 gigs (please bare in mind I pain a CPU shop to install this, ((dose not mean they are correct!!!)) they also installed an addon program that gives you different views IE graph's ect that show you PC's performance ect... every thing I use (((IE... control panel ect... and the add on program both give the same readings. I realize I may still not have my PC the way it should be but thats what I read from the programs. Also they upgraded mu RAM in matching sticks as to I think they said ""running them in pairs (I thing two slots where green and two blue or purple) but it seemd as though they wanted to be assured they ran as two teams of two sticks rather than four indivdual sticks. (I sure hope you can tolerate my lack of the CPU industry language, I sell Medical devices in the O.R. and trying my best LOL...) It sounds like at least I understood the 3 gig deal (XP) and for once not waste unessesary funds on PC upgrads, LOL. (2.) "FSX is NOT a DX10 game." I guess this patch or upgrade of the shaders will icrease performace. Even though (I appreciate you letting me know that FSX is DX9, that helps a bunch) FSX is DX9 what will run DX9 better Vista or XP Pro) I may and probably missed somthing in this case, sorry for that; IE... Will Vista increase the the performace of FSX? Will it hurt? Are we better with FSX on XP Pro or Vista? *(2. cont.) Last, if Vista will carry more RAM (I dont know the limit) will the fact we can increase our memory to what ever it is make significant difference?Agian, you obviously a very busy person thus I appreciate agian you tollerence of these extra questions. * (After typing this I am not sure but hope maybe this question will help me get it, did not want to edit).Thank you.Mark.System:OS:MS Windows XP Professional, Ver 2002 Service Pack 2 Hardware:Intel Pentium® 4 CPU 2.802.84 GHz, 3.00 GB of RAM Radeon X1600 Pro 512MB running a 21/19.6 Sony Flat Screen Tubed Monitorand a 17/16 NEC/Mitsubishi Tubed MonitorGeForce FX 5200 128MB running a NEC/Mitsubishi 18 Flat Panel

[Guest Traffic]

If all you've seen posted here and elsewhere were not reason enough for you to even consider Vista, then you probably shouldn't. Especially when XP is working great for you. There certainly is nothing wrong with that.That being said; XP was working great for me too. It took me a while to get comfortable with Vista but now that I am, like I said, I won't be going back to XP. The only reason why I have one machine still on it is for FSX but that will most likely change when reasonably priced DX10 hardware become available and ACES releases the DX10 patch for FSX.Remember, it's really hard to describe the advantages of Vista simply in text. You have to use it yourself and for a considerable time before passing judgement on it. When I was testing Vista I always had it in my mind that I was testing something new, not something that necessarily has to replace XP, although replacing XP was exactly how it ended up for me. ;-)

[Guest Kev_Is_Soaked]

>That's all great Rob, but, please, explain to me why I need>to upgrade if my XP system is working well. That's my question>, no one ever seems to be able to come back with a compelling>answer.XP will die off. Vista is here, and its not going anywhere. Just like Dos, 3.1, 95 and 98, XP will have its day and then move off into a historical footnote.PC technology is advancing rapidly. Not just the OS, but gaming, application suites, the Internet, and hardware. The OS needs to stay current to support this. Nothing worse than having maxed out a technology to the best it can possibly be, then ceasing advancing to the next level.If XP is working well for you, then by all means... keep it and stick with that. I was in Future Shop last week, and while picking up a new Antivirus I overheard another customer asking the techie for advice. I had to laugh actually, and I do feel bad. The customer wanted to know if WinXP would work on his machine, he couldn't say what processor or how much ram he had, only that he was currently running Win95 and that his work has just bought a new piece of software that won't run on anything less than XP. If you want to be that guy in three years time, that's your choice. I think most people out there actually keep up with technology... they may take their time and buy Vista later in the year or even next year, but they will move on if they want to continue using the latest software/hardware etc :)Just my three and a half cents.

[Guest]

Another thing to remember is, Microsoft will stop supporting XP with updates, just like they did with 95, 98,and ME, one person I know thinks Microsoft will stop supporting XP this year, hope not, but you just need to look at the constant critical upgrades XP seems to need each month to stay ahead of malicious practices and wonder how compromised you will be once the support stops?However, I don't think I'll be jumping on the Vista bandwagon straight away, but know I will sooner or later, when I do I'll likely dual boot XP and Vista to ease my transition, just like I've done with previous OS's, hmmm, just thought, been doing this a while now, my first MS OS was DOS 5 :) I've used them all since then.