Printable View
Each and every single time I run my games on windows XP, they run slow as *ell. Developed under Win 98, I tested my games on Windows XP on my friends computer, so then I tested on another friends computer, and another. On every comp the games run really slow. Now I'm certain that it's not only directx games, I tested different kinds all run slow under XP, so what's the catch here? Is there like a patch to make vb runtimes run fast on XP or something?
Please help!
XP Sucks... =).
Z.
XP rules man.. what are you talking about
And also, why would microsoft limit their own programs on their own (NEWER) operating system?
XP is a memory hog. This leads to inherent slowness =).
Z.
M$ nearly always do this, each new version of Windows does more, which usually means it needs more power to run (CPU time & RAM). The idea is that you don't notice because you buy a better computer every time you upgrade your OS... :rolleyes:
I read somwhere that XP limits the FPS for DX8 and OpenGL
with OpenGL having an even lower FPS than DX8.
This limit is deliberate because M$ will want us to pay for DX9
If MS wants people to pay for DX9... ROFL. They would be shot, and developers would ALL move to OpenGL.
Z.
Good grief, conspiracy theories abound! DirectX has always been, and will always be, free. I don't know where you read such garbage, probably a pro-OpenGL site.Quote:
Originally posted by DeadEyes
I read somwhere that XP limits the FPS for DX8 and OpenGL
with OpenGL having an even lower FPS than DX8.
This limit is deliberate because M$ will want us to pay for DX9
You know it Machaira =).
Z.
And it's not because of the computer specs, On my machine (wind 98, 800Mhz, GeForce2, 128MB) my game runs at about 100fps with directx 7. Then I bring it to my firends 1.2Ghz, XP, 512MB and it goes like 0.5 fps - like what the hell. I guess if you want to do commercial games with VB you'd have to limit the requirements to only Win 95/98, possibly 2k (maybe).
Ah, what video card on his computer?
Z.
One friend i'm not sure, the other has a new ATI RADEON something.. They both have new computers, so it shouldn't matter the "worst new" video card can't be that bad.
Some "new" computers are coming equipped with TNT2s and worse. Though, a TNT2 wouldnt account for that kind of performance. My personal experiance with XP's rendering speed is not nearly as bad as what you have desribed though. It is most likely your code.
Z.
So now I have to change my code to make it work on XP? Mircro$oft, Micro$oft, *shakes his head* to be honest I don't even know where to begin, 100fps and 0.5fps is a lot of difference. I bet if I make my code run fast on XP it will become slow on 98, lol.
It could also depend on the drivers in the other computers. There's too many variables to blame just on the OS.
Machaira - lol, thats what i wud av expected the first reply to this thread to say ;) the most common problem with graphics, if the card is new and it runs pants, DRIVERS!!
Have you ever read any Hardware Reveiws?!?! They get like 300 fps on games like Quake 3. Ms Doesnt limit anything (except for low prices :)). Bumping a computer from a 850 to a 1200 Will Not do much if they video card is the bottle neck. I have a 1.4 ghz with a Geforce 2 MX, and I dont expect some huge increase if I where to upgrade to a Athlon XP 2200 (1.8 ghz for you people out there :), and yes I have a socket A Mobo). If you want to see real preformance Upgrades, Get a Geforce 4 4600, or a Radeon 9700. Or better yet, Wait for the N30.
I think that the API getTimePoint (or something like that) is more efficient on XP when used in timer functions. I had to modify mine to spead up, but on 98 it was like it was ignored.
That may be your problem - XP ships with DX8. Try recompiling your code using the DX8 SDK. I may be off base here, but it could be worth a shot.Quote:
Originally posted by Dude1
And it's not because of the computer specs, On my machine (wind 98, 800Mhz, GeForce2, 128MB) my game runs at about 100fps with directx 7. Then I bring it to my firends 1.2Ghz, XP, 512MB and it goes like 0.5 fps - like what the hell. I guess if you want to do commercial games with VB you'd have to limit the requirements to only Win 95/98, possibly 2k (maybe).
You are off base =). The DX7 code will remain the same for all time(thus begin backwards compatible).Quote:
Originally posted by Sheppe
That may be your problem - XP ships with DX8. Try recompiling your code using the DX8 SDK. I may be off base here, but it could be worth a shot.
Z.
The thread risen from the dead once more:). I haven't found a solution to my problem by the way. My friend sais that he didin't have a service pack for his XP and now that he got it I'll try testing my game on hic comp again. Some one suggested trying to set the .exe to run in win 98 compatibility mode? Not sure what that means/works.
That's what I figured, but I was speaking with some game developers who were complaining about what I mentioned. I thought I'd offer what I could. :)Quote:
Originally posted by Zaei
You are off base =). The DX7 code will remain the same for all time(thus begin backwards compatible).
Z.
Who makes commercial apps with VB anyway?
Radeon9700 kicks azz!
What card is N30? New NVidia one? I heard it's not ready until X-mas! (I don't want to wait that long...)
Yeah, CB... I think this Radeon9700 case sticker that is on my case makes my computer run faster =).
Z.
Not everyone wants to spend $300 on video when the whole computer cost less than 700!! lol. But dont forget the "TI" because i think there is a "MX" version of that card that isnt quite as good as the TI version. *i think*Quote:
Originally posted by cogman
<snip> Geforce 4 4600, or a Radeon 9700. Or better yet, Wait for the N30.
there is a resion for my saying to wait for the n30. Though the N30 will be priced around 250-300, the prices of ALL the prior Vid cards will drop. Now the Geforce4 TI 4200 right now is priced at $120, That really is a very resionable price considering that it is a small preformance drop from the Geforce 4600. IMHO Avoid the MX versions of the Nvidia cards all together, youll thank me for it.
I have a GeForce 2 MX/400 and I don't find anything wrong with it. It runs pretty much all of the new games pretty well, but I know that I will need to upgrade to a GeForce 4 to play the upcoming Doom 3:)
Zaei said it best... XP suckz :D
:p
n you'd think my pc wud freeze up every 2 minutes since im runnin 32mb of ram... :rolleyes: lol
i should really upgrade tho, but my cable modem keeps everything running speedy ;)
And the 4600 at $230!! What is up with that??Quote:
Originally posted by cogman
there is a resion for my saying to wait for the n30. Though the N30 will be priced around 250-300, the prices of ALL the prior Vid cards will drop. Now the Geforce4 TI 4200 right now is priced at $120, That really is a very resionable price considering that it is a small preformance drop from the Geforce 4600. IMHO Avoid the MX versions of the Nvidia cards all together, youll thank me for it.
Hey hey hey guys, slow down.... XP DOESNT SUCK!! I used to think it sucks untill I got aload of it!! Its awesome man, say what you will but it beats all other MS oses!!
The only problem I've had with XP has been running multiple accounts and my Internet access locking up when fast switching between them. Otherwise XP has been rock solid. I've almost forgotten what the BSoD looks like and I've never had a lockup that I couldn't get out of by killing the app. And the lockups were not Windows' fault.
I still wouldn't give up my win98:p
Heh, Ive forgotten what the BSoD looks like too... I dont get them in Win2k AT ALL, and WinXP simply restarts before the thing shows up (actually, the screen flashes blue, and then restarts). Probably happens once a day. Sounds like a Mac to me =). Win2k doesnt lock, only applications, which can be easily killed with ctrl+alt+del.
No, I dont think XP could ever compete with my rock solid 2k install...
Z.
Hehe, XP is better, I completely forgot what a BSoD looks like on my rock solid Win2K but now that I've seen XP, I am willing to give it a shot and let it win my heart over! XP does the coolest things man, if you dont have broadband, dont bother complaining, XP was built for high speed interent access, it was built to give you the ultimate in Entertainment (hmm, kinda like mac, but waaaaaaaayyyyyyy better!!)
There is nothing XP can do that I want or need that 2k cant do. I dont want some frilly idiot user OS =).
Z.
Ok, there is nothing that Win2K can do that XP cannot do.
Yes it can, it can run VB programs with normal speeds, not normal speeds divided by 10:)
that would be determined by the users pc, not just the os -
ram, cable/dsl or 56k... and other aspects determine the speed :p
2k can NOT waste my resources =). 2k can NOT hide away all of those useful settings. 2k can NOT baby my usage experience =). 2k does NOT crash everytime I lock my computer =).Quote:
Originally posted by MoMad
Ok, there is nothing that Win2K can do that XP cannot do.
There are lots of things that 2k can do that XP cant =).
Z.
most of these new o/s's (ie. XP) base most there resources on security , like built in firewalls etc... and i think it limits your exploration options ;)
Nah, XP uses a LOT of resources with its butt ugly UI... And changing its look to classing only makes it LOOK like regular windows... still hogs resources.
Z.
i still think its security is useless.. only takes up memory and resources, but your right about the interface lol :D
Hmm, maybe i spoke too soon... i read that XP is win2k + win9x + mac os-style ui. But im sure what you say is probably correct, ill stop talkin about something i dont kno anything about and refrain from making an ass of myself.
i thought of this as a friendly chatter rather than a debate lol
:D
I know that, but if you read my original post, programs run on my slower comp at 100s of fps while on every comp that my firends have with XP, programs run at like 0.5fpsQuote:
Originally posted by ice_531
that would be determined by the users pc, not just the os -
ram, cable/dsl or 56k... and other aspects determine the speed :p