[PLUG] Vista Gaming Performance and DRM [was XP or Vista?]

[m0gely]

Michael Rasmussen wrote:

> He came to the conclusion by paying attention to news stories on Vista.
> A good starting point to pursue your interest in this matter might be:
> http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html#cpu
>   and
> http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html#unified
> or just start at the top
> http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

Maybe you could help me out a little bit more.  From the article:

"This burden extends beyond DRM'd music into games as well. For example 
the content-protected version of the game Flatout 2 runs 15% slower than 
the same game without content protection)."

The article links to the content protection StarForce:
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarForce

The wiki and the article do not indicate DRM+Vista=bad gaming 
performance.  I interpret this as comparing DRM's overhead in Vista, 
where it applies, to that of content protection in video games, where 
used.  I don't see him saying that Vista is the culprit of your claims.

Additionally, I see several gaming sites that show benchmarks between XP 
and Vista with most games showing single digit differences in FPS.  This 
is what I was alluding too.  With better driver support for the new OS, 
these benchmarks will get closer.

-- 
- m0gely