No, not the Direct X 10-11-13 (you have heard about 13 haven't you?).

I mean in the raw performance arena. And no, I don't mean now. Mean down the road.

Or is the program just not built that way.

OK, all you smart people: let's hear it!

Thanks guys.

d.

It does not seem to be any slower playing games. Just not sure it's really faster though.

it differs for each system. Some people claim increases, some loses, some say the same. There's really no reason not to upgrade to Win7 IMO since it takes the best parts from XP/Vista and combines them into one

I'm through with XP -- regardless. I don't even have it on my system as a dual-boot anymore.

Windows 7 is not gagging on the old games. Seems to run old games better than Vista did.

DX11 (and beyond) games should run faster for a given level of graphics goodness because of the DX11 features -- e.g. tessellation.

I think XP had less overhead than Windows 7. Thus: Older games -- well, one has to read the comparisons. I think old games may run a bit slower on Windows 7 than XP -- for a given system. However, our systems are so far beyond XP now that old games run faster on Windows 7 than they did on XP with the XP era hardware.

Time has passed XP by. In my opinion, of course

This is pretty much the moral of nearly every benchmark I read, along with my own tests. In places where the two do consistently vary (like disk performance) the difference is so inconsequential (like +/- 5%) I doubt anyone would even notice or care. We can all agree that Vista sucks the most though and should not be bought, right?



Well, if I know MS, they've all but forgotten about XP except for patching up major security holes "that could allow an attacker to gain control of your computer" (of which 50 are discovered each month -_- )

At the very least, I'm sure some service packs or hotfixes will be released to optimize disk performance, or multi-threaded operations, or somesuch. Similar things were released for XP and Vista, and (in my case at least) made a difference.

Frankly, I don't care if W7 is faster or slower than XP..because the hardware advances beyond what was available when XP was THE thing to buy have made it a moot point for those games that I want to play on Windows 7. What is more important, and seems evident to me, is that W7 is more compatible with older titles than Vista was. That is a big bonus.

I even heard a rumor today on one of the forums that Jane's USAF runs fine on Windows 7. Interesting..!

The rumor is true. USAF runs great on Win 7 Pro x86. Now I don't know about the 64bit variety.

The only "major" glitch I've read in the forums is FFB driver capability, but that may be for older sticks. W7 is the OS MS should have come out with instead of Vista.

I'll be switching from XP64 to W7Pro after the first service patch is released, but not before.

plug_nickel (Al)

Jane's USAF works on Win7? My next-door neighbor has it, so I might try it just for the heck of it. (However, I'd certainly hope that there's some sort of TrackIR patch. I simply CANNOT do without TrackIR support in a combat flight sim now.)

Anyway, Win7 works fine for gaming purposes as far as I can tell, at least unless you're talking about old Win9x-era games-and in that case, it may be more the fault of NVIDIA and ATI breaking DX7-and-prior games in their drivers for DX10-and-later cards than Microsoft.

(Nevertheless, I'm still leaving XP on that Athlon XP 3200+/GeForce 6800 Ultra classic gaming PC I just completed recently to minimize any incompatibilities.)

Track IR is what killed Jane's USAF for me. There are some sorta workarounds but not true TIR. Win 7 may revive the research. But I think the fix is gonna be a sourcecode fix.....which ain't gonna happen.