Every time Microsoft releases a new operating system, it’s a piece of stinky, pungent crap. Then, after about a year or two of dawdling, they package and distribute a new version of Stink Protection (SP). This normally covers up the putrid smell just long enough until SP2. Windows 2000 reeked so badly, they were up to SP4 before users could unplug their nostrils.
Well finally, the day for Vista to get it’s first major update has arrived, and for gamers, it means next to nothing. According to Hardcoreware.net, the most SP1 had to offer was a 6% increase in Unreal Tournament 3 performance.
While this could mean games that utilize the Unreal 3 engine (R6: Vegas 1 & 2, Bioshock, Gears of War) will see a larger boost, others seem to be left in the dust. Both Call of Duty 4 and Crysis saw less than a 2% jump in FPS. This is not the update we were all wishfully hoping for, you know, the one that would magically fix all performance issues that divide XP and Vista.
It’s going to take much more than 2% to remove the blissful scene of rolling green hills from my desktop.
![[Post to Twitter]](http://sarcasticgamer.com/wp/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/tweet-this-small.png)
Tweet This| Related Posts:
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
4 responses so far ↓
1 Eddiemilz // Mar 20, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Yeah downloaded the SP1 yesterday, i noticed the difference in games (supprisingly), but now my startup is atleast 10secs longer.
i couldn’t wait for the SP to be released, as i expected great things from it. apart from slowing down my pc a little, and boosting game performance i see no difference
is it really worth it?
2 IncredibleBulk92 // Mar 20, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Wow, biased much? The OS isn’t that bad man, every new OS needs more powerful hardware. Try running the new mac OS on an apple 2. Well I’m sure that I’m going to be called a fanboy or an idiot for not trying to burn down microsoft lol
3 Captainx // Mar 20, 2008 at 5:20 pm
i totally agree with you im not upgrading until it has
at least had a good FPS jump…
4 FinalWhiteDove // Mar 21, 2008 at 3:03 am
@IncredibleBulk92
“every new OS needs more powerful hardware”.
That isn’t true, whilst most COMMERCIAL Operating Systems need more power with each new release other operating systems such as *nix (BSD, Linux etc), Syllable and other OSes that range from the small to the big (project and awareness wise) do not need more power, or very little more because the programmers actually take alot of time to make sure that most things are optimized and don’t waste resources.
In fact there are some versions of Linux that will run well on very old computers, the problem comes from the commerialisation of Operating Systems and them having close links to the rest of the computing industry so while they make money, they’re helping the rest of the computing industry to make money as well.
Also, I wouldn’t like to discredit the skills of the programmers at Microsoft or Apple, but it’s probably not their fault anyway, they are told to do things a certain way, and they have to keep certain bugs in their operating system so that certain programs will still run.
Also, I read once that Windows puts more power into it’s services that run and the main operating system itself.
Linux (allegedly) does not do this and puts more power into the applications that run on it.
Thank you for reading this, sorry it’s a mess, If I got anything wrong, please feel free to correct me =).
Leave a Comment