Games
Thursday 21st December, 2006 02:09 Comments: 6
I read a comparison of games played on Vista and Windows XP, and at first glance Vista looks shocking. The review suggested it was down to poor drivers, and it kinda is, but it's far more complicated than simply optimizing them for Vista. It's all because of OpenGL, which works fine on Windows XP, but is a little more tricky on Vista.
There are three choices for OpenGL implementation on Vista: an application can use the default implementation, which translates OpenGL calls into the Direct3D API and is frozen at OpenGL version 1.4 (this is why most games on Vista currently suck, and run about 1/3rd of the speed of their XP counterparts - having said that WoW seemed to play okay once I'd disabled DEP for wow.exe, but the default DEP setting just covers Windows and services, so it shouldn't affect most people); or an application can use an Installable Client Driver (ICD), which comes in two flavors: legacy and Vista-compatible. A legacy ICD, the kind already provided by independent hardware vendors targeting Windows XP, will disable the Desktop Window Manager, noticeably degrading user experience under Windows Aero (for those of you that haven't seen Aero in action, be prepared to be amazed as games and video play flawlessly as they move around the screen). A Vista-compatible ICD takes advantage of a new API, and will be fully compatible with the Desktop Window Manager. At least two primary vendors, ATI and NVIDIA, are expected to provide full Vista-compatible ICDs in the near future. And once they do, I imagine framerates will be comparable to Windows XP.
Don't blame Microsoft, blame the hardware vendors for not providing drivers quickly enough. Or in some cases, at all. I'm still finding Vista x64 a pain because of the signed driver requirement, but in the long run it should mean a more stable system.
There are three choices for OpenGL implementation on Vista: an application can use the default implementation, which translates OpenGL calls into the Direct3D API and is frozen at OpenGL version 1.4 (this is why most games on Vista currently suck, and run about 1/3rd of the speed of their XP counterparts - having said that WoW seemed to play okay once I'd disabled DEP for wow.exe, but the default DEP setting just covers Windows and services, so it shouldn't affect most people); or an application can use an Installable Client Driver (ICD), which comes in two flavors: legacy and Vista-compatible. A legacy ICD, the kind already provided by independent hardware vendors targeting Windows XP, will disable the Desktop Window Manager, noticeably degrading user experience under Windows Aero (for those of you that haven't seen Aero in action, be prepared to be amazed as games and video play flawlessly as they move around the screen). A Vista-compatible ICD takes advantage of a new API, and will be fully compatible with the Desktop Window Manager. At least two primary vendors, ATI and NVIDIA, are expected to provide full Vista-compatible ICDs in the near future. And once they do, I imagine framerates will be comparable to Windows XP.
Don't blame Microsoft, blame the hardware vendors for not providing drivers quickly enough. Or in some cases, at all. I'm still finding Vista x64 a pain because of the signed driver requirement, but in the long run it should mean a more stable system.
Fab - Thursday 21st December, 2006 09:22 Ah it is nice to be right. I have been telling people at work not to upgrade graphics cards or to Vista for gaming purposes for a fair old while yet. Let all the vendors get the drivers working first. Did M$ have very similar problems with Windows ME and 2000?
Windows Me was still based on the 9x code, so drivers weren't a problem. Windows 2000 was primarily a business OS, and while drivers were harder to obtain, most of the NT 4 drivers could be used to get basic functionality. IIRC I used a combination of 98 and NT4 drivers to get my TV card working under Windows 2000, when I bought my student edition. Windows XP was a bit more difficult, as many 9x users were finally introduced to an NT based operating system, and certain manufacturers (*cough* Creative *cough* were a little slower than others at releasing drivers). Most XP/2003 drivers will work on Vista (x86), but you won't get the full benefits of Vista. In theory you can use XP Pro x64 and 2003 x64 drivers on Vista x64, but in practice many of those drivers (especially XP Pro x64) are beta drivers and most are unsigned (and cannot be installed on Vista x64, unless you're willing to hit a function key every time you boot into Vista).
Vista x64 is more like the equivalent of going from Windows 3.x to Windows 95 (Vista x64 emulates 32 bit code and does't support 16 bit; Windows 95 emulates 16 bit code); Vista x86 is more like the jump from Windows 9x to Windows XP, and will be much less painless, especially as signed drivers are not mandated.
To be fair, companies like Realtek and HP have already made beta drivers available for Vista x64 (and x86) that are signed and have work perfectly for me so far.
Vista x64 is more like the equivalent of going from Windows 3.x to Windows 95 (Vista x64 emulates 32 bit code and does't support 16 bit; Windows 95 emulates 16 bit code); Vista x86 is more like the jump from Windows 9x to Windows XP, and will be much less painless, especially as signed drivers are not mandated.
To be fair, companies like Realtek and HP have already made beta drivers available for Vista x64 (and x86) that are signed and have work perfectly for me so far.
Let's be honest, most users don't know this stuff and like to keep it simple. We wamt everything to be compatible and for it to install easily. I have a 64 bit PC that I am not using to its full, but until I am satisfied everything will work properly I am not going to upgrade. I dont have the time at the moment to fiddle around and that is the common demoninator for many M$ customers.
Most users don't need to know this stuff, as they can't get hold of a PC running Vista until January 30th, that's 6 weeks away! There's no point in scaremongering and giving benchmarks for games when using legacy drivers. Some businesses may have copies of Vista already, but none will be used to play games, very few will be deploying Vista immediately. Businesses have gained access to the RTM code and skilled IT professionals will be testing drivers and compatability - as that's their jobs. I have a 64 bit PC so I went with Vista x64; most people that have bought a computer recently have a 64 bit capable processor, but most of them will stick with the 32 bit (x86) version, especially if they plan on upgrading from XP (as most users will be using a 32 bit version of XP).
Come January 30th, there is a good chance Vista drivers will be available for most devices - Vista already has something like double the number of drivers on the installation DVD than previous OS have come with, and Windows Update picks up most missing drivers (like GeForce Go drivers for my work laptop). If you want to be sure, use the Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor, which Microsoft has made available for free for ages, and is updated frequently: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/upgradeadvisor/default.mspx
People might claim they don't have time to fiddle around, but they're also the type of people that won't pay a lot of money to upgrade to Vista. Most people that do use Vista will get it with a new PC next year, or want to move to Vista and are prepared to fiddle. And it really is a fast and fairly painless procedure (took me less than half an hour on my work laptop - aside from the onboard modem, everything's been picked up fine, I haven't had to search for any drivers!). Installing a new OS is not going to be plain sailing, but this is one of the easiest OS I have ever come across to get up and running. You can even, if necessary, install drivers off USB pen drives instead of just a floppy drive - something you couldn't do with XP or 2003.
Stick with the "normal" 32 bit version, and most people will not have any problems.
Run the advisor, let me know what it says, your cynicism might be completely unfounded.
Come January 30th, there is a good chance Vista drivers will be available for most devices - Vista already has something like double the number of drivers on the installation DVD than previous OS have come with, and Windows Update picks up most missing drivers (like GeForce Go drivers for my work laptop). If you want to be sure, use the Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor, which Microsoft has made available for free for ages, and is updated frequently: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/upgradeadvisor/default.mspx
People might claim they don't have time to fiddle around, but they're also the type of people that won't pay a lot of money to upgrade to Vista. Most people that do use Vista will get it with a new PC next year, or want to move to Vista and are prepared to fiddle. And it really is a fast and fairly painless procedure (took me less than half an hour on my work laptop - aside from the onboard modem, everything's been picked up fine, I haven't had to search for any drivers!). Installing a new OS is not going to be plain sailing, but this is one of the easiest OS I have ever come across to get up and running. You can even, if necessary, install drivers off USB pen drives instead of just a floppy drive - something you couldn't do with XP or 2003.
Stick with the "normal" 32 bit version, and most people will not have any problems.
Run the advisor, let me know what it says, your cynicism might be completely unfounded.
Don't get me wrong, I am sure Vista has to potential to become very good and I do want to install it on my newer machine. But as with anything else, it is rarely worth being the first person to buy brand new software/hardware. Let them fix things, the price to drop etc.
One of the fun things I have been learning in my current job is how hard it is to make something complicated work properly from the very beginning. This is why we spend ages 'maturing' things like risk, technological readiness and testing. M$ have spent 5 years doing this so hopefully they have got it mostly cracked, but giving them time to 'mature' the product before Joe Bloggs public uses it makes it easier for everyone.
One of the fun things I have been learning in my current job is how hard it is to make something complicated work properly from the very beginning. This is why we spend ages 'maturing' things like risk, technological readiness and testing. M$ have spent 5 years doing this so hopefully they have got it mostly cracked, but giving them time to 'mature' the product before Joe Bloggs public uses it makes it easier for everyone.
That's why Microsoft have made betas available to the public as well as developers, in order to iron out any issues. Vista RTM was never going to happen until the number of known bugs dropped below 500, which is a tiny number for a brand new operating system - Oracle is meant to have something like over 100 known unpatched vulnerabilities, never mind bugs (e.g. http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/455143 has details of a simple XSS vulnerability). The features and APIs in Vista RTM are identical to that seen in Beta 2, which was made available to the public back in July. Developers (about 500,000 worldwide) got access to Vista Beta 1 on July 27, almost a year earlier.
It amazes me that anti virus software developers have been bitching about Patch Guard in Vista when it originally appeared to home users in Windows XP x64 back in April 2005 (it also appeared in Windows Server 2003 x64, but it was never really aimed at home users, althouh it would have been useful if the servers were used for Terminal Services to let users browse the web etc.).
Driver signing has been a possibility for years, but no one has really bothered with it, and most instructions typically tell you to ignore the warning and install the drivers anyway. I say kudos to Microsoft to force drivers to be signed in Vista x64 (none of these issues apply to 32 bit Vista), although I am slightly dissapointed that they didn't go the whole hog and force drivers to be WHQL signed too (as all driver signing does is tie a driver to a publisher, it provides no testimony to the quality of the driver). Is it really that hard for a publisher to put their name to a driver, after all that time spent building and testing their hardware and software? For a driver to be signed, each company/publisher must obtain and use a Publisher Identity Certificate (PIC) from Microsoft. Unlike the more lengthy and costly WHQL driver certification process (which might stop rootkits from being installed, as Microsoft would never let them get through the WHQL process), the PIC is given out for free and does not involve any quality checking of the driver code by Microsoft. It simply establishes the identity of the software publisher with a digital certificate. In addition to the free PIC, software publishers are required to purchase a VeriSign Class 3 Commercial Software Publisher Certificate, which costs $500 for a one-year license. Perhaps this is what puts developers off, but surely $500 is a small price to pay for the larger companies.
So what did the advisor say about your system? Can it cope with Vista?
It amazes me that anti virus software developers have been bitching about Patch Guard in Vista when it originally appeared to home users in Windows XP x64 back in April 2005 (it also appeared in Windows Server 2003 x64, but it was never really aimed at home users, althouh it would have been useful if the servers were used for Terminal Services to let users browse the web etc.).
Driver signing has been a possibility for years, but no one has really bothered with it, and most instructions typically tell you to ignore the warning and install the drivers anyway. I say kudos to Microsoft to force drivers to be signed in Vista x64 (none of these issues apply to 32 bit Vista), although I am slightly dissapointed that they didn't go the whole hog and force drivers to be WHQL signed too (as all driver signing does is tie a driver to a publisher, it provides no testimony to the quality of the driver). Is it really that hard for a publisher to put their name to a driver, after all that time spent building and testing their hardware and software? For a driver to be signed, each company/publisher must obtain and use a Publisher Identity Certificate (PIC) from Microsoft. Unlike the more lengthy and costly WHQL driver certification process (which might stop rootkits from being installed, as Microsoft would never let them get through the WHQL process), the PIC is given out for free and does not involve any quality checking of the driver code by Microsoft. It simply establishes the identity of the software publisher with a digital certificate. In addition to the free PIC, software publishers are required to purchase a VeriSign Class 3 Commercial Software Publisher Certificate, which costs $500 for a one-year license. Perhaps this is what puts developers off, but surely $500 is a small price to pay for the larger companies.
So what did the advisor say about your system? Can it cope with Vista?