toadeater Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 Alex St John, one of the three engineers who developed DirectX, says he now wants to ?slap? Microsoft One of the creators of Microsoft?s original DirectX specification, Alex St. John, has hit out at Windows Vista, saying that it?s holding back PC gaming. When the guys at ExtremeTech asked if he saw DirectX 10 as a viable gaming platform, St. John replied that: ?There are several, complex answers to this. First, Vista blows. DirectX came with it?you just want to slap Microsoft and go, "What the hell were you thinking?"? Along with Craig Eisler and Eric Engstrom, Alex St. John created DirectX for Microsoft in the first place back in 1995, but he now thinks that the resource-heavy OS is preventing PCs from being able to compete with consoles in the gaming industry. ?The PC's a fantastic gaming platform,? said St. John, ?superior to anything anybody's every imagined, superior to every console, and Microsoft and Intel put crap in the PC that make it not so good. And so if you see a PC that is not denuded by things interfering with it by Microsoft and Intel, in many cases like an Intel crappy graphics chip, or a bloated Vista operating system, it's a fantastic gaming platform.? St. John reckons that if ?the mass market PCs that everybody buys did not come with these crappy graphics chips on them and was not burdened with a fat OS, that the PC would be a larger contiguous gaming platform than all the next-generatiWould you have bought Windows Vista if you could have had DirectX 10 on Windows XP? ctX 10 on Windows XP? Could a ?bloated? OS really be holding back PC gaming, or is Alex St. John just nit-picking? Let us know your thoughts. http://www.custompc.co.uk/news/602286/vist...tx-creator.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajputwarrior Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 i agree, i don't care what MS says, vista is not a gaming OS. Gamers wants their systems as lean as possible, unfortunately thats not vista, xp is still the premiere gaming platform for the pc. If vista didn't force dx10 for vista only, gamers would NEVER go to vista, ever, and dx10 thus far as honestly been a joke... what game is out that actually looks amazing compared to its dx9 counterpart, most of the dx10 effects can be recreated in dx9. Crysis was suppose to be the one, but a simple hack a child can do enabled 95 percent of those hacks for dx9 and xp. I have an 8800gt and i still us XP... i dont care for vista. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P!P Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 Intel put crap in the PC that make it not so good. Like a processor??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windam Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 While I haven't had problems with Vista I will agree it is resource intensive.. Though RAM has dropped in price.. the OS itself isn't optimized to remove the bloat from its birth. It's not being stubborn to wait for 7 but XP will work and it will do it well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windam Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 Like a processor??? he ment the IGP GMAs dont do justice for gaming.. and that's the bottom line Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PermaSt0ne Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 the majority of computer users aren't gamers.... why would microsoft reduce their profit to appeal to such a small niche of consumers?? that's why linux and mac exist. they didn't like windows, so they made their own OS. hell, even the consoles have custom OS's to maximize gaming performance instead of complaining, make your own. put up or shut up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathachew Veteran Posted March 28, 2008 Veteran Share Posted March 28, 2008 The biggest issue I have with gaming on Vista is how poorly it runs after something is affected on a video. For instance, I play TF2 and Guild Wars in a window. If I resize or minimize the window, the game will suddenly become like a bloated piece of crap and will run at less than 10FPS. The only way to fix this is restarting the game. Do this in XP and it won't affect a thing. This has been my only complaint about Vista and gaming. I do have Aero enabled (Why wouldn't I?) and haven't tried doing this using Windows Classic or XP themes, which may make a difference. I also have to force Aero basic in order for TF2 and CS:S to run 20+ FPS faster. This makes everything significantly lighter, but not so much that it's too bright. I wish I didn't have to do this to play TF2 happily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megamanXplosion Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 I agree. I use an nLited XP (ISO is ~100 MB) for gaming :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berserk87 Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 the majority of computer users aren't gamers.... why would microsoft reduce their profit to appeal to such a small niche of consumers??that's why linux and mac exist. they didn't like windows, so they made their own OS. hell, even the consoles have custom OS's to maximize gaming performance instead of complaining, make your own. put up or shut up bingo... we have work OS, and a designing OS, casual user OS, but there is no gaming OS... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P!P Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 he ment the IGPGMAs dont do justice for gaming.. and that's the bottom line Does Intel advertise GMAs as for gaming? There main purpose is to power Aero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reactionary007 Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 "vista blows" you mean some people are just now figuring that out?? :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windam Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 Does Intel advertise GMAs as for gaming? There main purpose is to power Aero. You forgot Vista The bloat remains.. and IGP's aren't enough.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raa Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 Totally agree. And if i've said it before, i'll say it again. (so far) DX10 has given no tangible benefit to the user's experience in gaming that DX9 or OpenGL hasn't already had. Why should I splash out for Vista and suffer <insert excuse here>, to gain, well.... nothing really. "Crysis is better on dx10!" - like hell it is. I can already do very high on dx9! Let's not go there with Hellgate.... and I could name more Anyway, rant over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
:No-Frost: Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 MMm Windows Vista... antoher windows millenium?? xD... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnzoFX Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 I agree with the comment that everyone here is in the minority. Vista was not made strictly to appeal to gamers. Get over yourselves. =P Was XP designed for gaming? No computing OS is, Gaming in comparison comes second, and probably always will. Note I'm not arguing its less important. This "news" should not be taken as a Vista Bash. You can Bash OSX to hell, because it doesn't even serve as a solid gaming platform whatsoever... His comments were obviously biased towards the gaming industry. Microsoft goes leagues and bounds above Apple in regards to supporting gaming on their consumer OS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megamanXplosion Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 DirectX 10, and thus Windows Vista, was marketed as improving the gaming experience. It doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spaceelf Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 In some ways it does. It hasn't yet shown many benefits, but it is fairly new and needed time to mature. The hardware needed to mature, the drivers needed to mature, the developers needed time to understand it, and everythings going pretty well now. Every time I read something by Alex St. John I think he should just shut the hell up and stick to what he knows. I'm not saying the guy isn't intelligent but his statements always seem to contradict reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hum Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 Why expect an Operating System to be so game friendly ? Wouldn't it be better to just buy a game console ? ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cork1958 Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 Why expect an Operating System to be so game friendly ?Wouldn't it be better to just buy a game console ? ;) Man, A person after my own heart. Gaming is just a total waste of a computer, if you ask me!! Also, couldn't agreee more about Vista "blows!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megamanXplosion Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 Why expect an Operating System to be so game friendly ?Wouldn't it be better to just buy a game console ? ;) I would rather have a unified system. I can already browse the internet, listen to music, watch videos and television, make phone calls, paint pictures (with a drawing tablet), and partially game on my PC. If all games were made for the PC, I would never entertain the idea of buying a gaming console. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morphen Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 The biggest issue I have with gaming on Vista is how poorly it runs after something is affected on a video. For instance, I play TF2 and Guild Wars in a window. If I resize or minimize the window, the game will suddenly become like a bloated piece of crap and will run at less than 10FPS. The only way to fix this is restarting the game. Do this in XP and it won't affect a thing. This has been my only complaint about Vista and gaming. I do have Aero enabled (Why wouldn't I?) and haven't tried doing this using Windows Classic or XP themes, which may make a difference. I also have to force Aero basic in order for TF2 and CS:S to run 20+ FPS faster. This makes everything significantly lighter, but not so much that it's too bright. I wish I didn't have to do this to play TF2 happily. huh. never had this problem. I run TF2 with all effects on highest (AA,AF and so on) at 1600x1200, and it runs at at 80-100 fps constantly. okay,okay, not the most graphic game to date, and I'm running 2x8800gts 512mb :p Still the coolest online game to date :D Only problem i have had is Crysis, thats mostly because of my cpu, a amd x2 6000+, i know c2d's run it more smooth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morphen Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 In some ways it does. It hasn't yet shown many benefits, but it is fairly new and needed time to mature.The hardware needed to mature, the drivers needed to mature, the developers needed time to understand it, and everythings going pretty well now. Every time I read something by Alex St. John I think he should just shut the hell up and stick to what he knows. I'm not saying the guy isn't intelligent but his statements always seem to contradict reality. Agreed. This is actually like that sony guy criticizing sony. Baad company moral. Say that vista is bloated and slow, is like saying; why doesn't crysis run on my 1,3ghz p3 with a voodoo5 ?! THE GAME SUX :p 1 year from now, most xp users will have converted to vista because of the many dx10 games being released, and they have bought up to date hardware. I wonder how many have converted to OSX or linux? I bet a minimum. Why can't a moderator just delete vista/xp flamingwars threads? it's the same people over and over again. And both sides can be very hard in their accusations. I just wish people would wake up at see that it does not matter what you use, as long as your happy with it. I play games, most i play in vista, some i need to play in XP...kind of a retrogamer:p People, do you think intel or amd would have pushed new and faster processors if it wasn't for OS'es,applications and games requiring more firepower? Without development on the software side, you would all still be kicking it with your 486 DX 66MHz. okay,okay. I see your point, that could run windows 98, todays system can't actually run windows 98, because of limitations in chipsets. Gotta say, the 486 systems was muuuch better. it could even run doom at at least 50fps? Gah, a little annoyed and frustrated post... please bare with me, thanks for your attention,people :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matrix XII Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 Not the smartest thing to say I would think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smigit Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 For gaming I don't see Vista as the issue...I think the problem lies with the hardware with either retailers selling systems to consumers who may want to game without the hardware to do so and the integrated graphics chipsets for being crap. At least Intel appears to have acknowledged the later and apparently over the next 12 - 24 months will be striving to improve the standard video graphics on PC's. I don't see Vista being an issue but. A PC that games well on XP will most times game well in Vista (and if it doesnt 9/10 times thats a driver issue which again is the hardware issue). Likewise a pc that is crap in vista for gaming was probably crap on xp for the same game at the same settings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThisSiteHasLostItsCharm Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 This is why you buy a games console & a pc. I think the only gaming issues are to do with incomplete drivers and shoddy coding and optimization of games cough *crysis* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts