T
Read more here :- *enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTMzNCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
One of the few reason not to get Vista.
One of the few reason not to get Vista.
i_am_crack said:
but DX10 is not officially available on XP , also if u can shell out $70 per Genuine Game , >$200 for the GFX Card then u certainly can shell out money for vista too .thunderbird.117 said:
Zeeshan Quireshi said:
...but Vista lagged even with Dx10 compatible card! Also, considering the amount of tuning that would have gone into Dx10 over Dx9, wouldn't XP perform better than Vista if the former had Dx10?i_am_crack said:
It's not about XP & Vista; it’s about DirectX 9 & 10. They are completely different, DX10 is 95% re-written from scratch saving lods of overhead problems faced in DX 9, this results in new form of drivers from all the gfx companies cos now the way DX 10 & a GPU works is different. You cannot expect companies to come up with new drivers so quickly. NVIDIA for example right now is managing 6 driver sets, completely different from each other but in a unified package. Same is with ATI.
Are you suggesting that gamers with NVIDIA or ATI cards should not install Vista as yet i.e. until the companies improve their drivers?gx_saurav said:
eddie said: