Vista DRM to slow down high-end graphics?

Iria · Dec 25, 2006, 11:29 PM

Source: JoyStiq
_________
We've posted before on how the Vista brand will change the PC gaming market. But how will the OS affect the gameplay experience itself? An in-depth analysis of the operating system's draconian digital rights management features suggests gamers might not be too happy with some of the system's unintended performance effects.

Erroneus · Dec 26, 2006, 01:48 AM

I'm not changing to Vista, before drivers are more mature and the loss of performance is minimal.

Dont care about the price, because I get it for free through work (Buisness edt.), but any FPS loss over 5% in games, is just not good enough.

Dark Lord · Dec 26, 2006, 03:55 AM

with everything its got going against it, im 99% postive that well see a hacked version of DX10 up and running on XP.

once thats going, most gamers wont see a single good reason to switch to vista.

BlueMak · Dec 26, 2006, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Lord

with everything its got going against it, im 99% postive that well see a hacked version of DX10 up and running on XP.

once thats going, most gamers wont see a single good reason to switch to vista.

I sure hope you are right.

pr0digal jenius · Dec 26, 2006, 06:13 AM

DX10 will support HDCP out of the box tho,and is a display engine, not a 3d engine, so don't count on that

ET3D · Dec 26, 2006, 10:44 AM

I usually read this kind of article with a grain of salt. It's a FUD article, obviously. It's well thought out (compared to others of its kind) but contains enough disconnects from reality.

"The HFS process has another cost involved with it. Most hardware vendors have
(thankfully) moved to unified driver models instead of the plethora of
individual drivers that abounded some years ago. Since HFS requires unique
identification and handling of not just each device type (for example each
graphics chip) but each variant of each device type (for example each stepping
of each graphics chip) to handle the situation where a problem is found with
one variation of a device, it's no longer possible to create one-size-fits-all
drivers for an entire range of devices like the current
Catalyst/Detonator/ForceWare drivers. Every little variation of every device
type out there must now be individually accommodated in custom code in order
for the HFS process to be fully effective."

About all I did with Vista is install it and install the Catalst drivers on it. Which is enough for me to know that the above is bullshit. The Catalyst drivers are unified just like on XP (and more, since it's possible to download x64 and x86 drivers in the same installation archive). Now, it's entirely possible that ATI needed to do some extra work to produce this unification compared to an XP driver, but I'd bet that it's insignificant compared to other work done on the drivers.

Reading further, the "Decreased System Reliability" section is a little bogus. Saying that not detecting glitches is a good thing is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Yeah, right, just what you want is the hardware to start failing in small ways without you noticing it. Been there, done that, and what's described there sounds like a good improvement. Not to mention that Vista drivers are designed to more easily recover from glitches.

I think that the writer misdiagnoses the problem: Vista is not shooting itself in the foot. It's the content industry which is shooting itself in the foot. Microsoft has two choices: adding protection, or not letting people play hi-def content. The second option hurts consumers a lot more than the first.

I think that in the long run content publishers will realise that extra protection just hurts them. People hate that, and most people know who to blame (i.e., not Microsoft). Apple does copy protection, DVD players have copy protection, most books you buy on the internet have copy protection. These have nothing to do with Microsoft. It's just the publishers playing at annoying their buyers.

Dec 25, 2006, 11:29 PM	#1
Iria DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 7,275 Rep Power: 89	Vista DRM to slow down high-end graphics? Source: JoyStiq _________ We've posted before on how the Vista brand will change the PC gaming market. But how will the OS affect the gameplay experience itself? An in-depth analysis of the operating system's draconian digital rights management features suggests gamers might not be too happy with some of the system's unintended performance effects.

Dec 26, 2006, 01:48 AM	#2
Erroneus Get off my lawn! Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Denmark Posts: 13,419 Rep Power: 119 System Specs	I'm not changing to Vista, before drivers are more mature and the loss of performance is minimal. Dont care about the price, because I get it for free through work (Buisness edt.), but any FPS loss over 5% in games, is just not good enough. __________________

Dec 26, 2006, 03:55 AM	#3
Dark Lord HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Grand Rapids, MI Posts: 5,945 Rep Power: 125 System Specs	with everything its got going against it, im 99% postive that well see a hacked version of DX10 up and running on XP. once thats going, most gamers wont see a single good reason to switch to vista. __________________

Dec 26, 2006, 06:13 AM	#5
pr0digal jenius Delete Me Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 14,648 Rep Power: 0	DX10 will support HDCP out of the box tho,and is a display engine, not a 3d engine, so don't count on that

Dec 26, 2006, 10:44 AM	#6
ET3D Hopeless Dreamer Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Dreamland, near the pool of infinite graphics cards Posts: 3,057 Rep Power: 105 System Specs	I usually read this kind of article with a grain of salt. It's a FUD article, obviously. It's well thought out (compared to others of its kind) but contains enough disconnects from reality. "The HFS process has another cost involved with it. Most hardware vendors have (thankfully) moved to unified driver models instead of the plethora of individual drivers that abounded some years ago. Since HFS requires unique identification and handling of not just each device type (for example each graphics chip) but each variant of each device type (for example each stepping of each graphics chip) to handle the situation where a problem is found with one variation of a device, it's no longer possible to create one-size-fits-all drivers for an entire range of devices like the current Catalyst/Detonator/ForceWare drivers. Every little variation of every device type out there must now be individually accommodated in custom code in order for the HFS process to be fully effective." About all I did with Vista is install it and install the Catalst drivers on it. Which is enough for me to know that the above is bullshit. The Catalyst drivers are unified just like on XP (and more, since it's possible to download x64 and x86 drivers in the same installation archive). Now, it's entirely possible that ATI needed to do some extra work to produce this unification compared to an XP driver, but I'd bet that it's insignificant compared to other work done on the drivers. Reading further, the "Decreased System Reliability" section is a little bogus. Saying that not detecting glitches is a good thing is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Yeah, right, just what you want is the hardware to start failing in small ways without you noticing it. Been there, done that, and what's described there sounds like a good improvement. Not to mention that Vista drivers are designed to more easily recover from glitches. I think that the writer misdiagnoses the problem: Vista is not shooting itself in the foot. It's the content industry which is shooting itself in the foot. Microsoft has two choices: adding protection, or not letting people play hi-def content. The second option hurts consumers a lot more than the first. I think that in the long run content publishers will realise that extra protection just hurts them. People hate that, and most people know who to blame (i.e., not Microsoft). Apple does copy protection, DVD players have copy protection, most books you buy on the internet have copy protection. These have nothing to do with Microsoft. It's just the publishers playing at annoying their buyers.