“Microsoft is telling its selected gaming industry chaps that gaming under Vista will be ten to fifteen per cent slower than XP. It is because you have to load the 3D desktop all the time,” Fuad Abazovic reports for The Inquirer.
“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,” Abazovic reports.
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Yet another reason to Get a Mac. You can run XP and Vista on the Mac if you are so inclined, but you’ll also have Mac OS X if you’re into truly sexy UIs. See Apple’s Mac OS X Leopard (due spring 2007) sneak peek here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Billy Ash” for the heads up.]
This is significant since the Windows gaming market is huge. You have to think that if MS could have avoided this then they would. Maybe the coding is more out of control than anyone had previously thought.
Again, Apple has nothing to worry about with Vista. Apple, crank up your hardware production!
Yeah, but we have been shut out of gaming on the Mac for a long time (at least for many newer titles). I’m not much of a gamer, but I think using OS X to bash Vista on gaming is a bit of a strech.
Check this forum post out. There’s graphical comparison between Vista and XP whilst playing Flight Simulator X.
http://forums.avsim.net/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=121&topic_id=350718&mesg_id=350718&listing_type=search
Can I mention that Im a new switcher, after 15 years of Windows?
1 massive XP crash later.. Blechhh
I’m awaiting a 24″ iMac.. The ONLY reason that I will be using XP is to play Flight Simulator.
Windows seems to me like a compost pile. You can keep throwing new stuff on top, but everytning under it is still rotten.
You know, all sarcasm aside, it really honestly looks like Windows is on a clear downward slide while, as usual, every new Mac OS brings more and better performance, along with great eye candy.
I guess we’ll know for sure when both FISTA and 10.5 are out and about. The “normalizing” of Windows in the market place could come sooner than even I might have hoped. We can only hope…
I tell you what, you have to give kudos to Microsoft. When they play a joke on the world they really go all out on it.
I’ve read that one reason why Mac games are slower is because it’s Open GL tendrils run deep. Perhaps games running slower on Vista is because of a similar situation?
it’s a testament to the efficiency of OSX that my brand-new MacBook Pro (2.16 GHz dual-core Intel/2GB RAM/256MB VRAM) isn’t all that much faster than my three-year-old iBook (1GHz G4/1.2GB RAM/32MB VRAM).
Not only that – each update of OSX has made my old iBook faster. Can any Windoze users actually say that a new OS made their legacy machines faster? I think not! In fact, I hear that Vista will require most people to buy new machines just to run the bloody thing!
M.X.N.T.4.1:
That is the funniest thing I’ve read all day.
Well Billy Ash, it’s about bloody time and what took you so long?!
Welcome, you’ll love it I promise.
Windows people will never believe Mac people that after installing a newer version of OS X the older Macs actually get faster. This is directly contrary to Microsoft’s upgrades, the “standard” of what these people think is normal computing behavior.
Billy Ash should try X-Plane (http://www.x-plane.com/) for his Mac. It has much more realistic instruments, flight characteristics, realtime weather simulation, and scenery.
Music to the ear of PC gammers around the world. Now if they could only come to a complete stand still.
Speaking of Microsoft’s Flight Simulator, did you notice they are at version “X”, not “10” (http://www.microsoft.com/games/pc/flightsimulatorx.aspx). It almost looks like a Mac OS X version of the software. But the graphics looks too cartoonish. Perhaps they had to simplify it to make it run at a decent speed on Vista.
Re: X not 10, Can’t they think of ANYTHING new without stealing an idea?!!!
When XP came out, people said it was slower playing games than 98 was. But then new games only would play on XP so…….end of story.
you know, i recall that Mac OS X 10.4.8 is rumored to contain the code for multi-threaded OpenGL.
so get Vista, get a performance hit. get a Mac, get a performance boost.
Where is the incentive to up, er, downgrade to Vista?
What feckless idiot is going to do that?
Vista OpenGL runs slower because they are trying to tie people into DirectX. Divide and CON!!!!
The graphics subsystem has to run through layers of sludge too!
Sounds like trouble for MS. Vista will not run on many older PC’s. Big Business is not going to buy 10,000 copies of a $300 + operating system, and now the high end gamers are not going to buy something that plays slower. If this is true Vista will be a loss. 8 + years in development and will only going to be installed on new computer purchases.
I don’t see anyone camping out in front of a store to purchase this.
I’d say it’s time for that guy playing Flight Simulator X to upgrade his equipment. Vista is hardware intensive and really shouldn’t be compared on that stuff. An ATI 9600XT? And only 1 GB of RAM just doesn’t hack it. I’m not trying to defend Vista, but I would rather see the comparison on a decent rig. Just my opinion.
Vista doesn’t use OpenGL at all. It uses a Microsoft proprietory graphics engine.
“Yeah, but we have been shut out of gaming on the Mac for a long time (at least for many newer titles). I’m not much of a gamer, but I think using OS X to bash Vista on gaming is a bit of a strech.”
100% correct. OSX is 40% slower in OpenGL rendering than Windows anyway. Answer that one!
Alex,
See my post regarding OSX’s slower OpenGL rendering. It must have something to do with the fact that the OS itself uses OpenGL extensively, and Windows doesn’t. Until Vista, apparently.
m
Just proves if you have a better or more complex graphics environment you compromise by having a slightly slower (at least) responce. Speed is something that Windows users have boasted about for years over the Mac but the simple truth is that they will now lose that little repetitive chant of theirs while getting nothing as sophisticated or attractive when compared to the Mac to compensate them. Poor deluded fools.
spyinthesky,
Exactly. That’s what I was trying to say. Thanks.
m
Don’t make decisions about what computer to buy based upon gaming that can be better done on a dedicated (and less expensive) console.
Oh -Oh Kool Aid time for the wait till Distant Vista finaly hits the shores gaming crowd.
This is really really bad. Anyone that knows gamers knows the obsession for speed and frame rate is all that matters.
Wait till Obi Wan geek running XP on a latest hardware waxes
Théoden_13456 geek on same hardware with Vista.
Brilliant strategy by Gates to keep a strong demand for installed XP in the pipeline.
Consoles,
If you don’t game why make a comment here about gaming?
Consoles are not better than computers for gaming in my opinion or I would use that instead of a PC. Especially as some genres (RTS) are not even available on a console.
Add to that the ability to MOD and extend PC games and better graphics. I also like to use a keyboard to play and chat at the same time.
Plus, PC gaming is a multi “B”illion dollar a year industry. Even if you don’t game, why wouldn’t you like Apple to profit from that?
If you don’t have an iPOD or buy music from iTMS do you think that Apple should just close those services down too?
Ever wonder what the real reason for Windows genuine advantage being rolled out right BEFORE Vista is released might be?
You’re seeing it here, in part–there’s going to be enormous demand by people buying Vista-installed machines to downgrade to XP.
I’ve been hoarding bittorrented XP images so we have a nice collection of XP copies to install on any new machines that come pre-installed with Vista or, more likely, for the Mac minis we’ll be getting in the future.
Oddly enough, my old boss called me today from CompUSA where he was trying to get a 17″ MacBook Pro, but they were out of stock so I gave him the address for Springboard.
If I was a PC user and I was fine with XP, why would I upgrade to Vista? If I was a PC user looking to upgrade hardware, keeping my XP and buying a Mac is looking like a “relevant” option.
Ok here’s my 2¢
1: Microsoft has been wanting to kill off personal computing/gaming in favor of dedicated machines like X-Boxes because of rampant piracy.
2: Aspects of Trusted Computing protecting software requires the OS and EFI to be in complete control at all times and not bypassed.
3: Microsoft see’s where Apple is going with the ability to run multiple games in windows much like everything else is.
So with that 3D game developers will have to and really want to stay under the OS umbrella, this of course will incurr performance losses because game engines won’t be able to access the processors directly.
Apple never really seriously considered the Mac as a 3D gaming platform, rather providing ease of use and security in lew of “anything goes” performance tweaks.
Now Microsoft follows.
I’m a Windows user (unfortantly) who will soon be switching to the great Mac. The only problem is i considered that i wouldn’t be able to play my PC games on my mac. But when i considered it that was a little price to pay or put up with window crashes and virsus? I’m sorry it has to be Mac.