Vista Experience Score 09 Quad 2.66MHz

[RobP]

Probably doesn't mean much, but here they are:



RobP:D

[Eidorian]

5.9 isn't that hard to get. :rolleyes:

Now try it in Windows 7.

[Abidubi]

Your computer, running Windows Vista, is assigned a rating number called a "base score" that is achieved by measuring the capability of your computer's hardware configuration. This base score rating will help you to more confidently buy additional hardware, programs, and software that are matched to your computer's base score.

The scale of the Windows Experience Index ranges from 1.0 to 5.9. A higher base score generally means that your computer will perform better and faster than a computer with a lower base score, especially when performing more advanced and resource-intensive tasks.

I would imagine the highest score possible would be a good score.

[grue]

I would imagine the highest score possible would be a good score.

For a two year old operating system…

Windows 7's scale goes higher, and the successor will go higher yet.

[Abidubi]

For a three year old operating system…

Windows 7's scale goes higher, and the successor will go higher yet.

It's 2 years old.

[michael.lauden]

why a 1-5.9 scale

[jjahshik32]

I bet the 8 core models get a 6.0!!

[McShizzel]

I can't even get Vista to give me a score on my 2.26 8-core, it just gives me some error message. :(

[Macpropro80]

I can't even get Vista to give me a score on my 2.26 8-core, it just gives me some error message. :(

Thats not an error, Vista is suppose to screw up on even the most mundane tasks, if you don't get an error, something is seriously wrong.

[grue]

It's 2 years old.My bad.

[grue]

why a 1-5.9 scale

To give room for future growth. Same reason you never rate a woman as a 10, that means there's no hope of someone hotter

[Abidubi]

why a 1-5.9 scale

Because Microsoft admits that even with the most powerful system, your experience with vista will only be a 5.9/10.

[grue]

Because Microsoft admits that even with the most powerful system, your experience with vista will only be a 5.9/10.

…which is an improvement on the Mac experience for gaming, or buying current-model video cards.

[Abidubi]

Mac gaming could be just as good as PC gaming. What is the 1 thing preventing it? Game developers. It has 0 to do with Apple or OSX. Game developers will always follow demand (hence why the iPhone/iPod game market is exploding). If the market share was flipped, developers would be firing out OSX games just as much as they do for the PC right now. And they'd probably perform better in OSX than their ports would on windows because they would have been optimized for the OS.

And if OSX had all the games, it would have all the video cards and have them first. It would be windows users trying to flash mac cards to get them working in PCs. And oddly enough it would be Vista that is the most stable platform with no viruses (unless apple did with software/hardware what it does with iPhone apps).

Every time I hear someone say OSX sucks for games it makes me chuckle. It's such an ignorant comment. Windows is no better for games than OSX. The selection however is much much better, only because thats where the market is.

The Xbox360 is a pretty ****** system, heck it was made in 2005 wasn't it? It runs games with very sub-par graphics and performance. Why does it have so many games? Because it's cheap and everybody bought one, so there is a big market for game developers. Is it more powerful than the average mac? Not really, but at a dime a dozen and with a bunch of titles people don't care.

Having an OS or platform that runs a lot of products and software doesn't mean it's a good OS. It means a lot of people use it. A lot of people get their gas at Shell. Is Shell's gas really any better than Peet's pit stop?

/rant off :D

[jmpage2]

Mac gaming could be just as good as PC gaming. What is the 1 thing preventing it? Game developers. It has 0 to do with Apple or OSX. Game developers will always follow demand (hence why the iPhone/iPod game market is exploding). If the market share was flipped, developers would be firing out OSX games just as much as they do for the PC right now. And they'd probably perform better in OSX than their ports would on windows because they would have been optimized for the OS.

And if OSX had all the games, it would have all the video cards and have them first. It would be windows users trying to flash mac cards to get them working in PCs. And oddly enough it would be Vista that is the most stable platform with no viruses (unless apple did with software/hardware what it does with iPhone apps).

Every time I hear someone say OSX sucks for games it makes me chuckle. It's such an ignorant comment. Windows is no better for games than OSX. The selection however is much much better, only because thats where the market is.

The Xbox360 is a pretty ****** system, heck it was made in 2005 wasn't it? It runs games with very sub-par graphics and performance. Why does it have so many games? Because it's cheap and everybody bought one, so there is a big market for game developers. Is it more powerful than the average mac? Not really, but at a dime a dozen and with a bunch of titles people don't care.

Having an OS or platform that runs a lot of products and software doesn't mean it's a good OS. It means a lot of people use it. A lot of people get their gas at Shell. Is Shell's gas really any better than Peet's pit stop?

/rant off :D

Not true one bit.

Apple has no equivalent to Active-X that I'm aware of, which is one (of several) reasons that the same game, developed for both OS X and for Windows will run faster on Windows.

Apple would have to start a major crash course on putting such technologies into OS X in order to bring the gaming experience up to par.

In the end it's probably far easier to simply boot into XP for those times when you want to get a gaming fix.

[Abidubi]

But does apple have a reason to develop it? No. Why? Because there's no market.

[grue]

Mac gaming could be just as good as PC gaming. What is the 1 thing preventing it? Game developers. It has 0 to do with Apple or OSX. Game developers will always follow demand (hence why the iPhone/iPod game market is exploding). If the market share was flipped, developers would be firing out OSX games just as much as they do for the PC right now. And they'd probably perform better in OSX than their ports would on windows because they would have been optimized for the OS.

And if OSX had all the games, it would have all the video cards and have them first. It would be windows users trying to flash mac cards to get them working in PCs. And oddly enough it would be Vista that is the most stable platform with no viruses (unless apple did with software/hardware what it does with iPhone apps).

Every time I hear someone say OSX sucks for games it makes me chuckle. It's such an ignorant comment. Windows is no better for games than OSX. The selection however is much much better, only because thats where the market is.

The Xbox360 is a pretty ****** system, heck it was made in 2005 wasn't it? It runs games with very sub-par graphics and performance. Why does it have so many games? Because it's cheap and everybody bought one, so there is a big market for game developers. Is it more powerful than the average mac? Not really, but at a dime a dozen and with a bunch of titles people don't care.

Having an OS or platform that runs a lot of products and software doesn't mean it's a good OS. It means a lot of people use it. A lot of people get their gas at Shell. Is Shell's gas really any better than Peet's pit stop?

/rant off :D

No. When Apple starts actually helping developers by having an equiv to DirectX, it'll be one thing. There's a reason that the Mac versions of games run significantly worse on the exact same hardware.

I'm glad you mentioned the iPod and iPhone gaming scene. Why is it exploding? Because Apple gets a cut of that scene, so they're supporting it with a good SDK and frameworks.

[jmpage2]

But does apple have a reason to develop it? No. Why? Because there's no market.

That's typical egotistical BS.

You don't think Mac users play games? Figure out how many Mac users have a console or PC for gaming.

Apple needs to take into account how many sales they are losing because they haven't addressed this aspect of the market.

In some ways they've already acknowledged the weakness. Hence the inclusion of Boot Camp in Leopard so that people can get their gaming fix on the same hardware via bypassing of OS X entirely.

[grue]

But does apple have a reason to develop it? No. Why? Because there's no market.

Catch-22.

Meanwhile, I'm happy to reboot to Windows to game, I just wish I could get a better video card so that I wouldn't have to switch the DVI cable between cards every time.

[Abidubi]

In the end it's probably far easier to simply boot into XP for those times when you want to get a gaming fix.

And that's exactly what I'll be doing, unless there is a Mac port. I feel it appropriate to support the developers that try. As the market share grows maybe we'll see a change, but if you just buy the game for Windows and ignore the OSX version it's just decreasing the market and giving even less of a reason to develop for the Mac OS.

Oh and windows costs 3X as much as OSX... which doesn't help my motivation to use it.

[jmpage2]

Catch-22.

Meanwhile, I'm happy to reboot to Windows to game, I just wish I could get a better video card so that I wouldn't have to switch the DVI cable between cards every time.

Has it been determined with 100% certainty that you will not be able to add a 2nd 4870 to the MP without cooking it?

If you can put in a 2nd 4870 and cable it for SLI, even if OSX can't take advantage of it, you would have a pretty blazing fast setup for Windows gaming.

[grue]

In the end it's probably far easier to simply boot into XP for those times when you want to get a gaming fix.

I use Vista, but yeah.

[jmpage2]

And that's exactly what I'll be doing, unless there is a Mac port. I feel it appropriate to support the developers that try. As the market share grows maybe we'll see a change, but if you just buy the game for Windows and ignore the OSX version it's just decreasing the market and giving even less of a reason to develop for the Mac OS.

Oh and windows costs 3X as much as OSX... which doesn't help my motivation to use it.

The worst thing you can possibly do is feel sorry for Apple and gaming devs and knowingly buy the inferior version of a game to "support" the platform.

If Apple makes gaming a priority we would see some dramatic work done in just the next 12 months.

[grue]

Has it been determined with 100% certainty that you will not be able to add a 2nd 4870 to the MP without cooking it?

If you can put in a 2nd 4870 and cable it for SLI, even if OSX can't take advantage of it, you would have a pretty blazing fast setup for Windows gaming.

Dunno, I don't run ATI hardware whenever possible. My 8800GT is actually faster for the game I play most, anyway :D

I'm still hoping against hope that Nvidia will spit out a GTX260 Core216 for Mac, but I don't see it happening.

[grue]

And that's exactly what I'll be doing, unless there is a Mac port. I feel it appropriate to support the developers that try. As the market share grows maybe we'll see a change, but if you just buy the game for Windows and ignore the OSX version it's just decreasing the market and giving even less of a reason to develop for the Mac OS.


I'd like to agree, but I have an issue with paying more money a year after the PC release date for inferior performance.

[Abidubi]

That's typical egotistical BS.

You don't think Mac users play games? Figure out how many Mac users have a console or PC for gaming.

The only BS is that you don't realize that companies like Aspyr were making next to no profit porting games over except for AAA titles, and even then not much. Even if the games ran with 20 more FPS, they wouldn't have sold any more copies.

Would you stop using a PC gaming rig if there were 3 more games available for OSX and they ran a little better than they do now?

Do you think developers will spring to OSX as soon as an Active-X equivalent is released? Do you think they'll sell another 100,000 copies of their game by porting it over?

Here's a quote for you from a game developer (audio): http://www.battlegroundeurope.com/files/wwiiol/WWIIOLRatChat031009.mp3
56 minutes in
We work in like an area where it's like, "Oh! 99.5% of your players don't have a mac, so why are we one of the only game companies that give all this cool **** to macs... because we're morons!"

[Abidubi]

If Apple makes gaming a priority we would see some dramatic work done in just the next 12 months.

And why would they make it a priority if there were no developers? No sales = no developers.

Your talking about a chicken or the egg scenario and saying "if you kill the chicken, you'll get the egg".

[michael.lauden]

Because Microsoft admits that even with the most powerful system, your experience with vista will only be a 5.9/10.

haha. now that is a bad joke

[jmpage2]

The only BS is that you don't realize that companies like Aspyr were making next to no profit porting games over except for AAA titles, and even then not much. Even if the games ran with 20 more FPS, they wouldn't have sold any more copies.

Would you stop using a PC gaming rig if there were 3 more games available for OSX and they ran a little better than they do now?

Do you think developers will spring to OSX as soon as an Active-X equivalent is released? Do you think they'll sell another 100,000 copies of their game by porting it over?

Here's a quote for you from a game developer (audio): http://www.battlegroundeurope.com/files/wwiiol/WWIIOLRatChat031009.mp3
56 minutes in

The problem with your logic is that Apple is now getting 10% share of all new home computers being sold, and that percentage appears to be still increasing.

How many more people would choose Apple over PC if there were;

1. More/Better games
2. Faster video hardware

?

There's a simple solution here in the gaming area. If Apple decides to mature this market then they can take a cue from the MS play book.

1. Buy a couple of small but promising developers
2. Build Active X equivalent for OS X
3. Release some games and see how they do

I think that the Mac crowd typically underestimates the demand for entertainment applications. I don't think that the Mac is in any danger of becoming the rig d'jour for the hard core competitive gaming crowd who wants to build their own custom rigs, but there's probably a huge market out there for better games than what currently exists.

[seer]

I would never have ordered my Mac Pro (when will it arrive goddammit!!!!) if I was unable to game on it. So if Macs didn't run on intel hardware now, and thus I was unable to install Windows to game on... I would never consider the purchase as one I would make.

But seriously, even if Apple announced today a DirectX equivalent, and all the developers started enthusiastically pumping out great games for mac, it would'nt matter. Just like the console wars it would all become a battle of exclusive games. The mac would need to have 2 or 3 incredible games that everyone HAD TO HAVE for that were exclusive to the Mac for people to even start to investigate how much it would cost to switch to mac. And then most people would be put off by the price.

So in all 3 things are needed for mac gaming to take off;
- A directX equivalent that is just as easy to develop with
- Some incredible exclusive games
- FAR more freedom in graphics card choice.

[Aegelward]

At least someone is kind enough to review a quad 2.6, all everyone seems to be getting are the Octo systems, which are a tad out of my range.

Now if there was only an easy way to use third party cards in OSX huh.

[Ploki]

I would never have ordered my Mac Pro (when will it arrive goddammit!!!!) if I was unable to game on it. So if Macs didn't run on intel hardware now, and thus I was unable to install Windows to game on... I would never consider the purchase as one I would make.
me netiher when i ordered it one year ago. i was thinking, ****, GTAIV is due to be released in half a year... i need a decent computer to try it, and then again, i need an awsome computer to work on day-to-day...

ive ran windows last time 5 months ago.. and im not planning to do it again any time soon.
i would buy a mac even if i couldnt touch windows with a ten foot pole. i dont know why the hell do i even keep the windows partition up... only takes space.

[Tallest Skil]

Because Microsoft admits that even with the most powerful system, your experience with vista will only be a 5.9/10.

That's a good one; I hadn't heard that. :cool:

Meanwhile, I'm happy to reboot to Windows to game, I just wish I could get a better video card so that I wouldn't have to switch the DVI cable between cards every time.

What card do you have for Windows? I don't remember.

Has it been determined with 100% certainty that you will not be able to add a 2nd 4870 to the MP without cooking it?

It isn't possible. You need an external power supply.

If you can put in a 2nd 4870 and cable it for SLI, even if OSX can't take advantage of it, you would have a pretty blazing fast setup for Windows gaming.

CrossFire. Not SLI. SLI doesn't work at all.

When I get my machine, I'll report my Windows 7 Experience Index for those of you curious about what lies beyond 5.9.

[grue]

What card do you have for Windows? I don't remember.



XFX GTX260 Core 216 Black Edition (factory overclocked). I had pulled it once the 4870s were found to be earlier-Mac Pro-compatible, figuring the relatively minor performance hit would be worth not having to switch back and forth, but put it back in once I looked at 4870 benchmarks for Flight Simulator X. :o

[jmpage2]

I would never have ordered my Mac Pro (when will it arrive goddammit!!!!) if I was unable to game on it. So if Macs didn't run on intel hardware now, and thus I was unable to install Windows to game on... I would never consider the purchase as one I would make.

But seriously, even if Apple announced today a DirectX equivalent, and all the developers started enthusiastically pumping out great games for mac, it would'nt matter. Just like the console wars it would all become a battle of exclusive games. The mac would need to have 2 or 3 incredible games that everyone HAD TO HAVE for that were exclusive to the Mac for people to even start to investigate how much it would cost to switch to mac. And then most people would be put off by the price.

So in all 3 things are needed for mac gaming to take off;
- A directX equivalent that is just as easy to develop with
- Some incredible exclusive games
- FAR more freedom in graphics card choice.

I don't think that Apple needs blockbuster exclusive titles. All they need is more gaming capability and more parity with PC in the gaming area in order to convert more Windows users to Mac over the next few years.

Does Apple really want to lose potential sales over this hole in their software capability? PS3 has far less market share than X360 and yet most titles are still ported to it. You would think that Apple would come up with a Direct-X equivalent to make this easier on developers, who I'm sure would like to sell an extra 100,000 or more copies of their game if they could sell to the Apple community.

Hopefully this is something on the roadmap to be addressed after Snow Leopard ships. Apple certainly has seen how much revenue they can get from games for the mobile platform.

[rylin]

Do you think developers will spring to OSX as soon as an Active-X equivalent is released? Do you think they'll sell another 100,000 copies of their game by porting it over?

lol, wtf?
That's not the technology you're thinking of.

[Abidubi]

lol, wtf?
That's not the technology you're thinking of.

And what technology am I thinking of? I was replying directly to a comment that not having Active-X is one of the many reasons that game developers aren't porting to OSX.

[jmpage2]

And what technology am I thinking of? I was replying directly to a comment that not having Active-X is one of the many reasons that game developers aren't porting to OSX.

You are talking about Direct-X, which is the hardware access piece of Windows that makes it good for gaming.

Active-X is a web controls system.

[Abidubi]

You are talking about Direct-X, which is the hardware access piece of Windows that makes it good for gaming.

Active-X is a web controls system.

I'm not talking about anything. It wasn't me who said Active-X had anything to do with anything. I said why would 1 program change everything.

And OpenGL is the equivalent of Direct X. Yes, they are very different, but they do the same thing. If you design a game to run with OpenGL, there is no Direct X involved at all and vice-versa.

[jmpage2]

I'm not talking about anything. It wasn't me who said Active-X had anything to do with anything. I said why would 1 program change everything.

And OpenGL is the equivalent of Direct X. Yes, they are very different, but they do the same thing. If you design a game to run with OpenGL, there is no Direct X involved at all and vice-versa.

Apples and Oranges.

OpenGL can't talk to the network hardware, the audio hardware, etc. All it does is speed up graphics operations by talking directly to the video card.

[Abidubi]

Apples and Oranges.

OpenGL can't talk to the network hardware, the audio hardware, etc. All it does is speed up graphics operations by talking directly to the video card.

I forgot that there is no way to program audio or networking on OSX, sorry. Guess I should throw out my speakers then...


It's like saying.

"I can't write my essay in OSX because there is no word-perfect in OSX"
"You can use MS Word in both, it's cross-platform"
"Ya but the buttons aren't in the same place"
"So why don't you learn where the buttons are"
"But I don't want to write the same thing twice"
"So just write it in word, then it will be cross-platform"
"I don't want to use word"
"So then your stuck with with windows only"

[jmpage2]

I forgot that there is no way to program audio or networking on OSX, sorry. Guess I should throw out my speakers then...

What you fail to appreciate is that the reason that games that are developed (not ported) for both OS X and Windows run faster on the same hardware under MS Windows is because of Direct-X, which MS has spent years and millions of $$ developing. It's not as simple as writing software that can play sounds through your Mac's speakers. It's putting a game into an environment where it can talk to audio/video/network/etc hardware much more directly resulting in a dramatic speed boost by bypassing much of the normal OS baggage to do these tasks.

If you go back in time 12 years Windows was just as sloppy of a platform to game on as OS X is now.

Apple has thus far ignored this user segment and certainly they can continue to (I'm not here to tell Jobses how to run his company). It's my personal opinion though that if they raised the bar on making OS X easier to develop games for that they would sell more boxes.

[steveza]

When I get my machine, I'll report my Windows 7 Experience Index for those of you curious about what lies beyond 5.9.Please do, I would like to see how it compares to my i7 running W7 (I'll post it when I get home if I remember)

[dvince2]

When I get my machine, I'll report my Windows 7 Experience Index for those of you curious about what lies beyond 5.9.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say 6.0 :D

[Abidubi]

games that are developed (not ported) for both OS X and Windows run faster on the same hardware under MS Windows is because of Direct-X, which MS has spent years and millions of $$ developing.

And I agree, but it wont make developers or gamers flock over to OSX.

The only way that would happen is for OSX to be "unlocked" on any system, apple to spend years optimizing the OS for games, prices of apple hardware to drop, and for major developers to develop both platforms at once, and make a point to release all game 2 weeks earlier in the Mac every time. Thats the only way the Mac gaming situation will dramatically change... and that wont happen.

What is much more likely is if apple can really grab market share, indie developers become very successful and eventually grow into AAA title producers releasing OSX only games (because they are so familiar with the OS). With the larger market share it becomes profitable and there becomes less reason to avoid OSX for gaming. More dual-boot systems will be out there and gamers will become more familiar with OSX, encouraging PC developers to release mac versions.

That would take 10 years I'm guessing.

[steveza]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say 6.0 :DYou would have thought so but I'm pretty sure they have adjusted the scale so it's 6+ now.

[RobP]

You are talking about Direct-X, which is the hardware access piece of Windows that makes it good for gaming.

Active-X is a web controls system.

I used to code Active-X all the time. It's mainly used to describe COM based visual controls, normally packaged in OCX's. They can be used on the web, although many browsers may block them due to security settings.

I've primarily used them in enterprise level desktop systems, where they can be re-used by multiple applications.

Games primarily use Direct-X which has many interfaces supporting all sorts of things from graphics to sound. Only recently dabbled in this to write an ancient battles simulator (http://ancientarmies.spaces.live.com/). It is my understanding that for the Mac you can use OpenGL for the graphics side of things.

It seems to me, that the performance difference between the two systems probably has more to do driver maturity than anything else.

RobP

[steveza]

Well would you believe it but my score is 6 . . . out of 7.9 though. Disks let me down a bit.

[Abidubi]

Well would you believe it but my score is 6 . . . out of 7.9 though. Disks let me down a bit.

2 disks in a raid 0 would fix that.

[jmpage2]

2 disks in a raid 0 would fix that.

Or a WD Raptor
Or an SSD
Or a 15K SCSI
Or......................

[steveza]

2 disks in a raid 0 would fix that.Yeah probably, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it :)

[rylin]

And what technology am I thinking of? I was replying directly to a comment that not having Active-X is one of the many reasons that game developers aren't porting to OSX.

And that means you're off by at least 100 miles.
If you're going to pretend to know what you're talking about, at least do so convincingly.

It doesn't matter who started saying "Active-X" as opposed to "Direct-X"; what matters is who kept spouting nonsense.

Active X has next to nothing to do with game development, unless you're developing a bitblt sidescroller in VB 6, and even then it's a tenuous relationship at best.
That is all.

You may continue now.

[Abidubi]

And that means you're off by at least 100 miles.
If you're going to pretend to know what you're talking about, at least do so convincingly.

Oh I'm sorry. I didn't know that active-X is the holy grail. Thank you for correcting me. I'll make a note that things that don't have anything to do with gaming are the most important factor in game development. Is that closer than 100 miles?