We already know that Windows Vista offers tremendous improvements in usability, but isn't that good a choice for gaming - at least not yet. How is its application performance compared to Windows XP?

the value of my XP license just went up

i think over time performance is going to improve, as better products come out  
 
-ddr3
-better DX10 card's
-faster CPU's  
-the hybrid hard drive thingy
-multithreaded apps (<--- big one )
-update's  for vista ( service packs )

Oh boy.  The synthetic results kinda killed it.  
 
I did try out an RTM version a while ago, and it was ok for everyday tasks, but some games wouldn't run so I gave up on it.  
 
I also didn't like the fact that it started reading all the files in the folder once i opened it even if it was in list mode.  To get rid of that I had to disable some visual appearance stuff, which made it look like win2k, dammit.  
 
Ain't gonna install till sp1  even if it's free.

How does Windows Vista perform if you take out stuff you don't need with vLite? And compared to a stripped down version of Windows XP? (nLite)
 
To quote the author of vLite:

(quote was about vLite 0.8 beta, 0.9 beta might be even better)

I sure am glad I did'nt run right out and spend $500 on a new DX10 video card.

 
Since I've read about how Vista's DRM system works, I keep having to double-check that people are actually saying usability is improved.  Yes, things are prettier and more intuitive, but the same can be said for many Linux distros and Mac OS X.  I think a big part of "usability" is in that it actually runs software.  Everything I've read shows how it's much more difficult to get software working properly on VIsta.
 
This difficulty has to do with the DRM.  OpenGL isn't supported because of DRM issues.  3D sound designed to take advantage of your sound card doesn't work in Vista because of DRM.  Vista goes around the standard sound logic and runs DRM-safe, but highly inefficient, sound reproduction through the CPU.  I expect that the way VIsta bungles up sound in games to be one of the major reasons for the poor performance.

Why do Vista articles keep being placed in the Cooler and Heatsinks forum?

I don't like Vista.  It's currently just a cumbersome OS; way too much junk packed together I think.  The only thing that I've read about it that I do like is that Microsoft decided not to allow every bit of code written access to the kernel; though this is probably one reason it's slower.  It was kind of bad that Vista was put through all of that checklist and "training" the OS just to have it perform worse than XP.  That is way too much trouble in my opinion just to get an OS to do what it should be able to do on its own.
 
I've used Vista RC1 and really didn't care for it.  I prefer just a simple, easy to use, clean OS.  I got so irritated at Vista when I had Internet Explorer open and I tried to close it by clicking the X in the top right corner, but that desktop gadgets thing was in the way of the X and I couldn't click on it.  And the annoying pop-up every time I do anything that asks me if I really want to do that.
 
 
 
One thing I feel may be in error that the author states,

Windows XP seemed to run applications faster than Windows 2000; though this was my perception, I didn't benchmark it.

 
lol, I wondered that too.

well, I guess DRM or something like it has to be in place when movies are involved, but when it comes to music - I'd agree with John Frusciante's take on it: music IS ultimately for the people, and when you get preoccupied with making more money by disabling access to it - you start writing crap instead of music.  
 
so, as of now: there's poor performance compared to XP, sound problems, comptibility problems - god knows what else.  Doesn't quite justify spending slightly under 1k to buy Vista and a DX10 card.

The comparison isn´t quite fair, if you ask to RUN Vista ona system, they demand a heavy 3D video card, XP don´t.
Also a heavy proc. (duo) and a lot of mem (2G). is not a waste on a Vista.
 
I am telling this, do you think that offices will buy systems with a heavy video card? Don´t think so. Ofcourse this articel was written with a gamer in mind. But when you write this articel pure about office app, then you get a different result.

I think you all are missing the most significant thing here.
Windows vista isnt that bad...
remember when XP first came out, ill bet my wallet that you were one of those people who swore they would never upgrade.. and now look at the situation: XP is very refined and polished espically with people designing programs for XP OF COURSE THEY WILL RUN FASTER. You should just be happy that Vista even supports your old programs and hardware.
 
preformance will improve over time. get over it..

is opengl eventually going to be supported by vista?
 
if it isnt, then thats a problem for some current games, but they'll move away from opengl in that case and you'll get something new replacing it.
 
i figure you'll see benefits when more vista specific application start popping up. if im not mistaken, most of the stuff in the benchmarks is for stuff that will work on both system, correct? so its old stuff thats had a patch or something thrown into it to make it work with vista, its not optimized stuff.
 
i dont think this is KO for or to vista. just give it a few months. probably by summer youll start seeing some improvements.
 
i guess this means though that i need to get my damn xp home key working. damn you microsoft and your not allowing me to reinstall my OS!!!

I agree.  when XP came out, people were throwing similar tantrums.  my programs dont work, games arent as fast, etc...  anyone here still game on 98?

Good thing you didn't actually bet your wallet, 'cause it'd end up changing hands.  
When XP came out I wasn't even in on it (didn't follow tech stuff at that time). I just came over to my friend's place, saw that he was running a new OS,  said smth. like "I want!" He burned me a copy, I went back to my place, installed it, and was happy ever since. Never ever since the first install had I any thoughts about coming back to 98. ))

 
You don't need a "heavy" cpu or cpu to run Vista. With a 128 mb video card and a athlon xp you'll run it fine.

What I'd like to know is if Vista is ever going to support OpenGL.  I believe the answer is no.  Also, support for 3D sound will not be allowed unless Vista drops the DRM, which isn't feasible.
 
The point of buying Windows is because MS has always kept compatibility as a top priority.  Apple went a very different direction, which is why their OS is so much more advanced.  Vista tries to do everything at once, and the fact anything works at all is impressive in that light.  However, if I have to give up my old programs to move over to Vista, then it's just as easy for me to move over to Mac or Linux.  Any of these is a fresh start.

word

The performance difference is so small in the games that it will be better with better drivers. As for office applications i am using SolidWorks and the sales rep told me that they recommend Windows 2000 not even XP to run the software flawlessly. Since Vista is built around DX10 it's no surprise to me that all the OpenGL heavy software are having poor performance.
 
Again the game performance gain in XP could even come from the simple fact that the games in Vista using more CPU since EAX is not working in Vista so the CPU has to generate the 3D audio. Also we only have beta audio drivers. Like i a