More gossip from the Inq: Make sure you have memory for Vista gaming

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35193

Seems that Vista works well with the 3D desktop and games, no slowdowns (yay!), but it eats memory like corn-nuts. 1.35GB for just HL2 and Vista running.

 

For one, I'm willing to believe that Aero (or non-Aero for that matter) runs in the background even when playing a game. That's a consequence of going with a 3D desktop and making the GPU a shared resource.

But now I also know why games might take a 10% hit or more...

I think that Microsoft could add in a few optimizations, such as a hybrid 2D/3D desktop. When the desktop is not the active "window," Vista could just show a static image (bitmap or whatever) and leave more of the GPU available for other (more fun and interesting) games. Done with the game, and your desktop picks up again in 3D mode. Whether or not they have enough time to code this idea is another matter entirely...

But as far as RAM usage goes, my Vista RC2 uses 700MB idle...so 1.35GB with a game is to be expected. Now I know I'll be glad I got 2GB...if I switch over to Vista in the future.

 

Yet another reason to wait and see for Vista.

Honestly the only "good" part of Vista right now is possible better games with DX10, until they come out with some really good stuff using DX10 I won't be bothering to give any money to Micro$oft.

 

Well, I may not be moving to Vista any time no anyway...I've got a BSOD error on Vista startup that I didn't have a week ago. I'm thinking it doesn't like my docking station (or something attached to it).

 

Heck i stopped buying MS stuff a long time ago. I guess they noticed this since my Acer 5102 came with XP Media Center but no recovery CD. Alot of good that does, guess im supposed to go buy image software instead.

 

That's the manufacturers trying to save $0.10 per computer or whatnot...they call it a "resource minimization initiative!" Don't blame Microsoft, blame the company that made your computer.

 

Their story doesn't make a lot of sense.
What they seem to be saying is that "even while playing a game, Aero resources do not get swapped out, and Aero does not shut down".

Gee, surprise surprise. Neither did the 2d desktop. Neither does your antivirus or firewall. That doesn't mean it is *actively* running and updating while playing the game.

Meanwhile their actual test results say that games are not affected by turning Aero on, which contradicts the claim that "it is running while playing" (at least if we choose the "It is actively updating while playing"-interpretation. If we use the "it is loaded into memory"-interpretation, they are correct, and it obviously doesn't make a scrap of difference to performance.)

So the only somewhat sensible interpretation is that Aero doesn't do anything, doesn't use any CPU time, and isn't in fact *running* while you're playing a game. It is just loaded into memory, just like any other GUI on any other OS, because, well, it's not something you want to unload, even if a game is playing.

As for RAM usage, it doesn't really mean anything. Any sensible OS will reserve extra memory before it's actually required. Then it'll "slim down" and allocate chunks to applications when they request it. But when it's not needed by other apps, there's no reason for the OS to sacrifice performance by releasing resources that may be needed again soon.

I'm willing to bet that we'd see much lower memory consumption if they'd run it on a system with less memory.

 

Obviously it would use less RAM...I'm fine with the Vista consumption figures. 2GB is good though...I'll have more than enough to satisfy all my programs pretty much no matter what.

I'm fairly certain that Aero boils down to a few extra features in the GUI...features that are only activated by choice (like Win+Tab and mini taskbar viewing window thingies). What I'm interested in knowing if the OS is *rendering* the desktop when a game is on at fullscreen. It is one thing to have a 2D bitmap desktop running in the background (XP)...it is quite another when it is a 3D desktop with vectors, shaders, and the like.

I recently read a report (I think on Tomz Hardware) about games in Vista performing about 10% worse than XP. If true, I have to wonder where the extra power is being sapped to...

 

The report said that Vista was 10% slower in DirectX 9 games. It's obviously impossible to compared DX10 games, since they don't run anywhere else (and DX10 is a lot faster, which should compensate for that 10% slowdown).

But as the inq said, they got the same performance with Aero turned off, which seems to indicate that it's not rendering anything from the GUI. (which makes sense, and is exactly as it should be)

That's why I thought their article seemed to be complete nonsense.

 

I think Vista is going to have the worst sales out of all the windows OS for the first year.

 

Probably...but part of that is because a lot of people are happy with XP.

Obviously we don't have DX10 games yet...but considering DX9 is really all we'll have for a *little* bit...

 

Heh, I've just run into a major headbanger myself with RC2. My lappy will no longer completely shut down under Vista. It closes out, the screen goes black, but the power lights and fan(s) continue to run. I have to pull the plug and battery every time now. Don't know why this is suddenly happening now, as it never occurred before or with any other Vista build.

Ahhh, I had almost forgotten about the joys of working with beta software. lol

 

Assuming many new PC's will be shipped with Vista and given the ever rising yearly computer sales, that seems unlikely.

 

You can't just hold down the power button for 5-10 seconds? That should turn off any modern computer without having to remove power like you're saying.

 

Many businesses will buy WindowsXP on machines, and not upgrade to Vista. I think he's right... consumers may move on to Vista slowly, but they aren't the majority of computer purchases. And if Microsoft starts causing problems for businesses, I think they'll be looking elsewhere for an OS. Who wants an operating system that basically requires 2GB of RAM just to run a single game?

 

No joy. It has no effect whatsoever. I don't think Vista is actually closing out correctly anyway, as I get the prompt on bootup asking if I want to go into Safe Mode because the os did not shut down correctly. The only thing I messed with prior to these events is the audio driver (that I recall).

As for the general power button shutdown, I've ran into instances in the past where XP hung on closing and the power button had no effect, forcing me to unplug the computer (on random other machines).

 

Yeah, I'd say that Vista allocates memory accordingly like any other OS. night_2004 indicated that he has ~700MB memory usage on his machine with 2GB of memory. I also have Vista RC2, but I have 1GB of memory, and my usual memory usage is ~500MB. That's the nature of Operating Systems.

I don't know that Vista will be the worst selling OS in Windows history. Personally, I like it and think it's a big step forward. Keep in mind, most people hated XP when it came out too and wanted to stick with Win98. It's always like that. And companies rarely ever upgrade immediately. That's the nature of businesses. My dad's computer at work is still running Windows 95. It's all he needs there, so they don't upgrade; this is nothing new and nothing unexpected. It takes at least a year for companies to start latching on to a new OS in masses, then another one or two before it becomes widely used amongst businesses around the world. Therefore, I argue that the majority of Windows sales do in fact come from pre-loaded consumer PCs in the beginning, and no one is expecting the consumer PC industry to slow down next year.

As for the gaming performance, this may be due to the new API of DirectX 9.0L in Vista and not really Vista itself. I of course have nothing to back this up, but it seems logical. 9.0L basically tries to get things that are designed for DX10 to run in DX9, so it makes sense that it's going to mess with performance in one way or another. But like I said, this is pure speculation on my part.

 

I certainly hope your not trying to connect the two. What does gaming have to do with the majority of businesses not adopting? I would also hope your comment about the 2gb is more then a personal opinion because that's all it is until theres more tangible proof, not that the Inq isn't such a fortress of journalistic greatness.

 

Vista only requires 512MB of RAM. Plug in a $10 512MB flash drive and set it all to ReadyBoost and you'll be good to go for most anything.

 

Is that only possible with Vista? I'm clueless about ReadyBoost.
Also will transfer speed be the same as installed RAM?

 

ReadyBoost is only available in Vista. It's a Vista feature. It will not transfer as quickly as RAM, but it will transfer faster than your hard drive, which is the intent. It replaces the Virtual Pagefile that is usually allocated to the hard drive.

 

I'm really looking forward to windows vista, it may be a work in progress at the moment still, but it does look like they've made a huge effort to improve on XP

 

Wish I never lost my 1GB usb so I can give it a try.

Wonders if it works with a SD card via card reader?