Reply 180 of 187, by Jo22
- Rank
- l33t++
RayeR wrote on 2025-02-28, 14:22:Jo22 wrote on 2025-02-28, 03:09:That way, gamers and power users would have adopted it without so much complain.
Not that easy. As I remember that times even a lot of gamers from overclockers community I participated with enough powerfull computers refused to upgrade to Vista. Because there was still some differences - XP got just better FPS and lower latency in games and also some games had compatbility issues in Vista.
Ah yes, I remember. Windows XP went through same when it was fresh.
There had been gamers who said that Windows 98SE had better performance/FPS.
RayeR wrote on 2025-02-28, 14:22:It might be caused by changing video driver model and drivers might not be well optimized at the beginning. So many of those gamers/users just skipped Vista and go to Win7 later, also after some more HW upgrade. On some fast C2D/Q the differences fades. And of course they needed DX10 for new games and also new games was optimized for Win7...
Yes, driver model was a problem. And lack of GPUs with DirectX 9c/Shader Model 2.
Some users also used XP drivers (XPDM) on Vista, rather than WDM 1.0 drivers.
Aero Glass also was an issue, or rather the lack of it. Dual monitor support was wanky, too
With Aero Glass, the GUI ran on GPU as shader program and did cause less CPU usage.
The Composition Manager did coordinate mixing GDI and Direct3D output.
That's why a duplicate copy of video RAM was kept in PC RAM, which had caused higher memory usage. 🙁
When Aero Glass was being enabled, Direct3D ran all the time, so that DirectDraw, OpenGL and exclusive Direct3D access had to be integrated into that Direct3D output.
When Vista RC was out, I had bought an used Geforce FX 5200 just for Aero Glass and Vista.
The 5200 was being described in a Vista book by Microsoft Press,
but at same time being discouraged because it was meeting the requirements so barely.
Also interesting is that Vista/7 had three types of Direct3D 9x, 9EX and 10.
- With DirectX 10 later being updated to version 11 in one of the Service Packs or Platform Upgrades..
At this point, Windows Vista had most of the features of Windows 7.
With the exception of the older driver model and the lack of 2D acceleration.
On the bright side, though, Windows Vista had kept its majestic GUI.
That means that nowadays, Windows Vista is still good enough for tasks that normally would require Windows 7.
In VMs or in picture editing, hobby use etc. It's still an affordable alternative.
Also, it comes in a shiny big box! 😁
But I'm afraid I'm talking too much again here! 😅
"Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." - The Minstrel
//My video channel//