In <1242725.AC1YSx6VsC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
> __/ [ Peter Hayes ] on Tuesday 07 November 2006 16:47 \__
>
>> Test renders using Blender 2.42a show Vista to be a resource hog.
>>
>> Test render, average of three renders for each platform,
>>
>> Fedora Core 6 Linux 13m 09s
>> Windows 2000 13m 37s
>> Vista RC1 14m 09s
>>
>> Shuttle PC, AMD Barton 2500+ 1 Gb ram with a Vista performance rating
>> of 2.8 I would have hoped Vista would be at least as fast as Windows
>> 2000. Where have all those years of development gone?
>
> That's only about 5% slower, which is impressive. Other benchmarks are
> more pessimistic.
But why no improvement over the W2K figure? The machine can chop a
minute off the Vista time so I'd expect Microsoft's latest and greatest
to come close to the Linux time.
> Vista gaming will be 10 to 15 per cent slower than XP
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| So if you play Battlefield 2 or FEAR or any other popular game you
>| are likely to get lower frame rates with Vista. That is certainly not
>| a good buying argument but don?t think you and I have much choice as
>| it looks like a take it or leave it deal. I like Vista as the 3D
>| desktop looks sexy but that is probably its key feature.
> `---- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34915
>
> Microsoft doesn't yet play games on Vista
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| The firm has its Vista logo all over its boothm, but all the machines
>| that we investigated were running Windows XP. Obviously, it is still
>| not the right time to switch to Vista as things might be not stable
>| for current games. We hope that they can meet the early 2007
>| schedules.
> `----
>
> http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33924
Gamers will eventually have to move to Vista because of the DirectX 10
lock in.
--
Peter
|
|
