…and this is news? I’m sure they’d run a hell of alot faster in Win98, if it were possible.
Actually, years ago I performed an informal benchmark test on a laptop I had with win98/NT4/2000/Redhat on it, and NT4 actually had the least overhead of the three (redhat wasn’t tested).
if if if…
NT4 had the least overhead? I’m shocked /sarcasm
Since MS is touting this as a superior gaming platform to XP, it’s probably good to know for those who aren’t all geeked up.
I think it will be a superior gaming platform IF (and that’s a pretty big if) you have the hardware to do it. You’ll need AT LEAST 2GB of RAM, probably one of those new nVidia 8800 cards (sick specs if you haven’t seen them yet) and at least a dual core cpu. Most people don’t have that kind of a setup therefore, yes, gaming performance will not be great.
As I sit here right now typing this out on Vista build 5728, I have only 512MB of memory in my machine and I only have Outlook and IE open, I have 15MB of free memory.
who cares about dx9… vista is all about dx10 and the next gen.
How many DX10 titles are out now?
0
So if you are planning to go right to Vista, not a good idea if you are a gamer.
thats a good thing considering that the hardware and dx10 arent out yet 
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34946
pretty intresting though, MS claims that DX10 will be up to 4 times faster than DX9… we shall see
How that they really measure that, it’s probably based off software algorithms which is more marketing than anything else.
yeah, I assume it’s probably more kernal related than anything