Error » Microsoft Error! » Microsoft Operating Systems Error » Microsoft windows vista error » Online game performance is worse in Windows Vista than XP

Microsoft windows vista error all errors related to microsoft windows vista

Post New Thread Reply
  Online game performance is worse in Windows Vista than XP
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-Apr-2007, 10:22 AM   #1 (permalink)
Fixed Error!
 
Iphone's Avatar

Posts: 4,202
Join Date: Mar 2007
Rep Power: 6 Iphone is on a distinguished road

IM:
Default Online game performance is worse in Windows Vista than XP

An extensive test of Battlefield 2, FEAR, and World of Warcraft on both Windows XP and Windows Vista has revealed that gaming performance is far better in Windows XP than in Vista, according to Bigfoot Networks. The results showed that Vista’s networking stack not only didn’t improve online game play, it often introduced more lag than its predecessor, Windows XP. The tests were performed on a variety of systems with the game on the same map, on the same servers, with the same number of players, at the same time. Testers were monitored to ensure that during gameplay they followed each other closely and were on the same team.
The performance data collected showed Vista online gaming performance is worse that online gaming in XP.
The white paper published by Bigfoot Networks gives two primary reasons why online gaming in Vista is worse.
First, Vista’s networking stack has gained a lot of new features, but as a result has gotten “fatter” and more bloated and convoluted than ever.
Second, Vista’s networking stacks does not fix any of the problems inherent in its interfacing that cause online games to under-perform. In fact, Vista’s new networking stack completely ignores improvements to the network protocol of choice: the UDP network stack.
The white paper also indicated that “Nearly every enhancement of the new Vista Stack is focused on TCP/IP throughput improvement, instead of UDP/IP latency improvement (which would help online games)”.
Another test was conducted by bypassing the networking stack on both Windows XP and Vista using LLR Technology with a Killer NIC network card. Yet again, the data showed the Vista network stack is inferior to the XP stack. Bypassing the Vista network stack yielded larger benefits in performance than bypassing the XP networking stack.
Bigfoot Networks also looked at the performance of some non-game applications to see how they performed, and discovered that they were equal or better in Vista that in XP.



Source:VISTA.BLORGE.com » Blog Archive » Online game performance is worse in Windows Vista than XP
Iphone is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Reply With Quote
   


   
Post New Thread Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:57 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0

DMCA Policy

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228