HOW stupid is it to even compare vista in Beta 2 when you should be updated with RC1. Games on RC1 are running sooo much better

this article should not have been published! O.o

hello? rc1 released

Guys, you should retest with RC1, not sure why you used beta 2 as it was in very poor shape (for a beta 2) RC1 is night and day faster, more stable, and much better for games.

Just installed build 5728 of Vista and ran 3dmark 06. Scores with this build of Vista now beats XP easily (I have a dual boot).

I can not say much until the final edition is realised to the light of the market.

As much as I don't like Vista, I still think it would be more fair to try a newer version such as RC1 for the comparison.

well done

I find this kinda funny for two reasons.

(1) There's a build later than RC1 available now!

(2) You need a DirectX 9 class video solution for 3D desktop eyecandy!

On Mac, you can do the same job with an onboard Intel IGP solution! On Linux, you can get similar eyecandy with just the same OR even something as old as a GF2 MX!

It speaks much inefficiencies with Vista.

Its a very sad attempt to get people to upgrade their hardware. (No doubt 99% of you folks that hang around here will upgrade without thinking).

You tested the Beta 2 version?

Thats bad....You have to use the RC1 version, that one is better in performace ;)

If they are going to rewrite the aritcle, then I hope they
will use the latest build of Vista. As of now it's
Windows Vista RC1 Build 5728 not 5600.

The ATI cpu usage issue was related to a particular usage of a synchronization method amongst thread which resulted in the appearance of using the CPU when it really wasn't (thread spinning looks like work when something is idling inefficiently.) BTW, on XP with IE7 (latest) when you press Ctrl-T and it brings up a new tab it certainly *does* put your cursor in the address edit box *if* you've told it to not display the newbie 'welcome to tabbed browsing' page and instead have it bring up the blank page. If the newbie comes up the focus is on the page instead of the edit box.

eop3uf hs
elæløbkmertbmjntlkgjol

i like the describtion of how the background stuff works in vista compared to xp and such. but as for the test... why. why o' why did they test only using beta 2? RC1 is out and RC2 is on the horizon. (actualy this weekend if im not mistaken) and compared to beta 2 RC1 is a quantum leap ahead. especialy on the graphical combatibility area. and just forget about x64 for now. because only 32 is working. its not something i like at all, seeing as i got a x64 architecture hardware but thats the reality of it. that being said 32 bit version of vista RC1 has equal or better performance over XP. and thats with 1900+ known open bugs. the OS wont ship with anything above 500 known bugs though. so lots of performance left to gain befor release and postrelease patches. and hopefully in the future x64 will actualy be available for real.

AGAGAGAGAG!

This Just Sucks. The review sucks, but Vista suck more. Suck my hairy nuts Microsoft! I am staying with XP Pro!

This Just Sucks. The review sucks, but Vista suck more. Suck my hairy-nuts Microsoft! I am staying with XP Pro!

Arshloh!

running S3 chrome chips with 64mb ram with 2 gig system ram on xp pro with 200 gig hard drives times 6 do you think the S3 will handle graphics with Vista and areo

would ATI Radeon X1300 Pro be a good video card for Windows Vista?