So whose fault is it? Microsoft or nVidia?

I was just wondering. Is it nVidia's fault or Microsoft's fault that I'm
getting 50 less frames per second in every single game? It's not hardware
because in XP I get 50 frames more. And Vista 32 isn't exactly a resource
hog. It only uses 350 megs of ram for me.

So I'm guessing that it's either Vista's implementation of DirectX 9c that's
the culprit or nVidia's horrible drivers. If it IS nVidia, there is just no
excuse for that. I mean Vista has been out for a year and you still haven't
fixed it?

And if it is Microsoft's Direct 9 EX in Vista, then what the heck man... I
mean can't you just copy and paste the code from DirectX 9c in XP to Vista?
I mean whose bright idea was it to use separate teams for the Vista DirectX
and the XP DirectX? I'm sure that's what happened. The people on the XP
DirectX is probably sabotaging the Vista DirectX team out of spite or
something.

I'm not entirely sure who to blame really. All I know is Vista is just
hurting graphics performance for seemingly no particular reason at all.

Maybe I should get a new ATI card...

Try this each week or so
http://www.nvidia.com/object/vistaqualityassurance.html

--
John the West Ham fan

<><

"Autumnale" <> wrote in message
news:B4F74E2C-862C-42BF-A57C-...
> I was just wondering. Is it nVidia's fault or Microsoft's fault that I'm
> getting 50 less frames per second in every single game? It's not hardware
> because in XP I get 50 frames more. And Vista 32 isn't exactly a resource
> hog. It only uses 350 megs of ram for me.
>
> So I'm guessing that it's either Vista's implementation of DirectX 9c
> that's
> the culprit or nVidia's horrible drivers. If it IS nVidia, there is just
> no
> excuse for that. I mean Vista has been out for a year and you still
> haven't
> fixed it?
>
> And if it is Microsoft's Direct 9 EX in Vista, then what the heck man...
> I
> mean can't you just copy and paste the code from DirectX 9c in XP to
> Vista?
> I mean whose bright idea was it to use separate teams for the Vista
> DirectX
> and the XP DirectX? I'm sure that's what happened. The people on the XP
> DirectX is probably sabotaging the Vista DirectX team out of spite or
> something.
>
> I'm not entirely sure who to blame really. All I know is Vista is just
> hurting graphics performance for seemingly no particular reason at all.
>
> Maybe I should get a new ATI card...

i think vitsa has directx 10 and not 9

Neerav

"Autumnale" <> wrote in message
news:B4F74E2C-862C-42BF-A57C-...
>I was just wondering. Is it nVidia's fault or Microsoft's fault that I'm
> getting 50 less frames per second in every single game? It's not hardware
> because in XP I get 50 frames more. And Vista 32 isn't exactly a resource
> hog. It only uses 350 megs of ram for me.
>
> So I'm guessing that it's either Vista's implementation of DirectX 9c
> that's
> the culprit or nVidia's horrible drivers. If it IS nVidia, there is just
> no
> excuse for that. I mean Vista has been out for a year and you still
> haven't
> fixed it?
>
> And if it is Microsoft's Direct 9 EX in Vista, then what the heck man...
> I
> mean can't you just copy and paste the code from DirectX 9c in XP to
> Vista?
> I mean whose bright idea was it to use separate teams for the Vista
> DirectX
> and the XP DirectX? I'm sure that's what happened. The people on the XP
> DirectX is probably sabotaging the Vista DirectX team out of spite or
> something.
>
> I'm not entirely sure who to blame really. All I know is Vista is just
> hurting graphics performance for seemingly no particular reason at all.
>
> Maybe I should get a new ATI card...

"Autumnale" <> wrote in message
news:B4F74E2C-862C-42BF-A57C-...
>I was just wondering. Is it nVidia's fault or Microsoft's fault that I'm
> getting 50 less frames per second in every single game? It's not hardware
> because in XP I get 50 frames more. And Vista 32 isn't exactly a resource
> hog. It only uses 350 megs of ram for me.
>
> So I'm guessing that it's either Vista's implementation of DirectX 9c
> that's
> the culprit or nVidia's horrible drivers. If it IS nVidia, there is just
> no
> excuse for that. I mean Vista has been out for a year and you still
> haven't
> fixed it?
>
> And if it is Microsoft's Direct 9 EX in Vista, then what the heck man...
> I
> mean can't you just copy and paste the code from DirectX 9c in XP to
> Vista?
> I mean whose bright idea was it to use separate teams for the Vista
> DirectX
> and the XP DirectX? I'm sure that's what happened. The people on the XP
> DirectX is probably sabotaging the Vista DirectX team out of spite or
> something.
>
> I'm not entirely sure who to blame really. All I know is Vista is just
> hurting graphics performance for seemingly no particular reason at all.
>
> Maybe I should get a new ATI card...


Go to this website..

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en

download and install.. then report back to this thread with your findings..

--
Mike Hall - MVP
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx

Mike Hall is right. Get the DX9 Runtimes and install them. They will not
overwrite your DX10 install and they will give you DX9 like it would in XP.
That should help you get a better FPS rate.

Also nVidia drivers are still a bit buggy. The newest 169.25 are the best
ones yet but I have still gotten reports of them not being able to be used
correctly in SLi or 64 Bit Vista with great accuracy. ATi would be even
worse. Since they have been acquired by AMD, ATi has fallen. They have
even less driver support then nVidia. At least in my experience. I see
less and less driver releases from ATi compared to nVidia. Plus many ATi
things still don’t work right.

--
~Alex T~
..:MVP Windows Shell/User:.

"Mike Hall - MVP" <> wrote in message
news:#...
> "Autumnale" <> wrote in message
> news:B4F74E2C-862C-42BF-A57C-...
>>I was just wondering. Is it nVidia's fault or Microsoft's fault that I'm
>> getting 50 less frames per second in every single game? It's not
>> hardware
>> because in XP I get 50 frames more. And Vista 32 isn't exactly a
>> resource
>> hog. It only uses 350 megs of ram for me.
>>
>> So I'm guessing that it's either Vista's implementation of DirectX 9c
>> that's
>> the culprit or nVidia's horrible drivers. If it IS nVidia, there is just
>> no
>> excuse for that. I mean Vista has been out for a year and you still
>> haven't
>> fixed it?
>>
>> And if it is Microsoft's Direct 9 EX in Vista, then what the heck man...
>> I
>> mean can't you just copy and paste the code from DirectX 9c in XP to
>> Vista?
>> I mean whose bright idea was it to use separate teams for the Vista
>> DirectX
>> and the XP DirectX? I'm sure that's what happened. The people on the XP
>> DirectX is probably sabotaging the Vista DirectX team out of spite or
>> something.
>>
>> I'm not entirely sure who to blame really. All I know is Vista is just
>> hurting graphics performance for seemingly no particular reason at all.
>>
>> Maybe I should get a new ATI card...
>
>
> Go to this website..
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en
>
> download and install.. then report back to this thread with your
> findings..
>
> --
> Mike Hall - MVP
> http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx
>
>
>
>

Try this each week or so
http://www.nvidia.com/object/vistaqualityassurance.html


--
John the West Ham fan

<><

"Autumnale" <> wrote in message
news:B4F74E2C-862C-42BF-A57C-...
> I was just wondering. Is it nVidia's fault or Microsoft's fault that I'm
> getting 50 less frames per second in every single game? It's not hardware
> because in XP I get 50 frames more. And Vista 32 isn't exactly a resource
> hog. It only uses 350 megs of ram for me.
>
> So I'm guessing that it's either Vista's implementation of DirectX 9c
> that's
> the culprit or nVidia's horrible drivers. If it IS nVidia, there is just
> no
> excuse for that. I mean Vista has been out for a year and you still
> haven't
> fixed it?
>
> And if it is Microsoft's Direct 9 EX in Vista, then what the heck man...
> I
> mean can't you just copy and paste the code from DirectX 9c in XP to
> Vista?
> I mean whose bright idea was it to use separate teams for the Vista
> DirectX
> and the XP DirectX? I'm sure that's what happened. The people on the XP
> DirectX is probably sabotaging the Vista DirectX team out of spite or
> something.
>
> I'm not entirely sure who to blame really. All I know is Vista is just
> hurting graphics performance for seemingly no particular reason at all.
>
> Maybe I should get a new ATI card...

Thanks. I already have the newest drivers from nvidia. Even the beta
drivers aren't usually any good though. Right now I'm more inclined to place
the blame on nVidia than Microsoft really.

I don't think I need that. I installed the Nov directx 9.0c updates already,
but I'll give it a go. I'm actually thinking about installing the SP1 RC1.
Maybe directx 10.1 will be a little better.

See, the problem isn't that they don't work correctly. They work great.
Media center runs fine. And Aero looks great. The problem is the
performance. You don't notice the performance in normal 2D applications like
surfing the internet. But boy do you noticed it when you're playing games
though. Almost universally, people I know use XP instead of Vista because of
the poor gaming performance. They usually dual boot or something to get the
functionality of Vista and the performance of XP.

What video card do you have?


--
Ferret