An exclusive gaming industry community targeted
to, and designed for Professionals, Businesses
and Students in the sectors and industries
of Gaming, New Media and the Web, all closely
related with it's Business and Industry.
A Rich content driven service including articles,
contributed discussion, news, reviews, networking, downloads,
and debate.
We strive to cater for cultural influencers,
technology decision makers, early adopters and business leaders in the gaming industry.
A medium to share your or contribute your ideas,
experiences, questions and point of view or network
with other colleagues here at iVirtua Community.
For a start, the openGL is (controlled?) via directX, meaning more than a 50% decrease in performance for applications that use OpenGL.
I don't know about this, but if anything Vista will offer improved performance. There is a lot of performance work going into everything, including new hardware design.
Quote:
Secondly, the specs needed are horrible.
How is that? Any mid-range and better CPU would be fine. 512MB is recommended as a mininum (just like Windows XP). For video card all you need is a DirectX 9 card that has at least 64 MB of graphics memory. I am sick of hearing all this crap about people needing an awesome computer just to run Vista.
Every time a new Windows version is released the same stuff happens. Everybody says performance is going to be worse, they are not going to upgrade, bashes Microsoft and all this other rubbish. Then some idiots come out with useless tweaking guide misinforming tons of people.
How can it offer more performance if one the most used graphics platform in the world is scrapped and then emulated within directX meaning something like a 50% decrease in performance? (see openGL.org) Sure, the gui might be a little faster, and the file system (WinFS) will be better (Although this will be available in XP too, and is already in beta..), but when it comes to things like games that use openGL, and 3d modelling, then I can see lots of people going back to XP or another OS that fully supports OpenGL.
And there will be no way to tweak it anywhere near to what it was, and (tens of?) thousands of developers and modellers will be doomed.
And no, this never happened in any previous versions of windows. it was always included ever since 95a.
Last edited by kahrn on Sun Sep 04, 2005 4:20 am; edited 1 time in total
Wow. This sort of garbage is exactly what I am talking about. It is not true because the D3D wrapper is unlikely to be that slow and because Vista doesn't prohibit the use of ICDs. Vista offers better OpenGL support than any previous version of Windows, and it's completely mind-boggling that people are complaining about it.
This claim is complete nonsense.
Quote:
It would be technically straightforward to provide an OpenGL ICD within the full Aeroglass experience without compromising the stability or the security of the operating system
It would not be \"technically straightforward\". It's also quite possible that it would not be \"performant\", either. Apple's OpenGL implementation is designed to allow this kind of context-switching, and its performance in many OpenGL applications takes a corresponding performance hit. The hit in Vista would likely be even greater, due to switching not just between OpenGL contexts, but between OpenGL and Direct3D.
Don't believe all this crap you hear about Vista being worse. It is just about always false. Like I said, everytime a new Windows version comes out the same crap happens. Everybody is going to continue to bash Microsoft and Windows Vista saying it is going to be worse then Windows XP etc. Then when it is released some morons (Blackviper maybe?) will write completely useless tweaking guides filled with false information and poor advice. Just look at the thousands of stupid Windows XP tweaking guides.
Digg Topic
Tag topic on On del.icio.us
Technorati Search
Post to Slashdot
