So whose fault is it? Microsoft or nVidia?

[Autumnale]

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...

 

[housetrained]

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

 

[Neerav]

i think vitsa has directx 10 and not 9

Neerav

 

[Mike Hall - MVP]

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/...38-db71-4c1b-bc6a-9b6652cd92a3&displaylang=en

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

 

[~Alex~.:MVP Windows Shell/User:.]

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.

 

[housetrained]

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

 

[Autumnale]

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.

 

[Autumnale]

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.

 

[Autumnale]

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.

 

[Autumnale]

7600GS with 256MB of ram. They both run on 400Mhz. The GPU and the ram that
is. Yeah, I know. There's my problem right there. But still, it's kind
of ridiculous. I still lost a bunch of frames going from XP to Vista.

In any event, I had already installed the Nov 2007 update for directx 9c the
time I posted the first message. It didn't really make a different. I
imagine games wouldn't even run without it. I think the problem is that the
directx installer only installs stuff on a need to install basis. Stuff
that's Direct 9 EX isn't replaced.

And I was suspecting that that might be the problem right there. That there
isn't a complete directx9c standalone in Vista. It's basically Direct 9 EX,
the Vista version of Directx 9, together with parts of the Direct9c for XP or
something.

I don't really know what they do.

I suspect the problem is with nVidia though. I hear they have to go through
millions of lines of code to correct the problem in Vista or something like
that. Yeah, I seriously doubt that. If it takes them that long to fix their
drivers, Windows 7 will be out before they the Vista drivers working right.


I suspect the main problem is that no one is willing to write drivers for
old directx 9 video cards when they have directx 10 video cards out that they
want you to buy.

The problem with that stratagem is that a bunch of games still use directx 9
instead of directx 10. In fact all of them do basically. With the
exception of Crysis really. Bioshock uses Directx 10 too. *Shrug* Oh well.
I don't really know what to do.

Could be worse I guess. I could be running Linux and have to write the
drivers for my video card myself.