Arma slower with Windows Vista?

[Warpy]

Arma seems to be running like a slug with Vista, not sure if the ATI video card drivers are to blame or the coding of the ARMA itself. Since Arma isn't supporting Dual core, SLI or DX10 I figured it probably isn't going to run to well with the latest O/S, anyone else noticed this performance drop?

[Sickboy]

ArmA is 100% unsupported on Vista, any kind of performance you can get out of it is purely luck.

My Vista performance is about 10-25fps under XP performance in ArmA.

Maybe in future patches, BIS will work to support Vista properly...

[echo1]

I think Vista slows down most games because it hogs more RAM. Last time I checked, XP was better for gaming.

[TheValiant]

I initially had ARMA running under Vista home premium on my machine:

Pentium D820
1 gig ram
Geforce 7600 gs PCI
onboard sound (realtek 7.1)

Just reinstalled XP and have noticed a massive jump in framerates.

Like eveyone else has said if you want to get a good framerate with ARMA you need a kick ass system with Vista or if like many people you are in the middle with your machine specs you need to stick to xp.

[Chris Death]

I can't find the thread but i remember someone been
posting tests with various games and resolutions on
Vista and on XP and in none of the tests Vista was
the winner in speed or framerate.

Now it's your turn again to find another reason why you don't like ArmA

~S~ CD

[Loyalguard]

[H]ard|OCP did some evaluations recently comparing gaming performance between XP and Vista, using both NVidia and ATI cards. ***XP pretty much came out on top in all tests so it doesn't surprise me that ArmA might run slower on Vista than XP (though ArmA itself wasn't tested). ***Here are links to the articles:

NVidia Cards:
XP vs. Vista - A Tale of Framerates

ATI Cards (with commentaty on the previous NVidia test)
XP vs. Vista - A Tale of Framerates: Redux

[CharlieBox]

It is not surprising Vista will run a game slower than it did on XP. ***It is also not surprising that XP will run a game slower than Win2000. ***It is also not surprising that Win2000 will run a game slower than 98/ME....etc... Get my point here? ***Every operating system that has been released has been pretty much overhauled in some fashion or another. ***I know this because I am a developer, and the changes that I have had to make with my code to accomodate the new operating system going all the way back to Win 3.0. ***In addition, every iteration of OS that comes out...notice that it take up more ram? ***That is because it is does. ***But you also have to remember what the OS is doing too.

Do the RAM prices have anything to do with how much RAM an OS takes when in development? I believe yes, otherwise we would all be using some cool arse flash ram drives and the death of harddrives would be reality.

Get this...In 1995 an 8mb ram chip cost almost 500 bucks. ***One year later (1996)...and yes...one year later...Win95 was released...and around (or right before) that same time...8mb of ram dropped to 50 bucks. ***Today I can hardly believe my eyes when I can go drop 100 bucks and get 2 gigs of quality ram for my computer.

With that said, Vista (In my mind) is probably the equivalent of going from Win 3.11 to Windows 95. ***I believe that the overhaul is that significant to state that. ***I also believe that Vista (given what it does) is probably the most stable iteration release of windows.

Something to think about.