Does vista run pc games slower than XP??

I have a amd phenom x4 2.3 ghz

4 gb ram

hd 4850 gpu

It looks like it doesn't affect me vista or xp.

Vista supports multi-threading and run the desktop in direct X.

Personally I'd say stick with XP for the time being. There's really no real reason or benefit for upgrading to vista. XP is very stable and fast. You know the saying, why fix what isn't broken

i got vista and a **** machine, but i have has no trouble playing games, it even runs crysis, albiet on sh*tty settings

geforce 7600gs 256mb

1GB RAM

Dual core 1.8ghz (3.2ghz)

gog.com (goog old games):

All games are Vista and XP compatible.

Thanks to our handsome programming team, the ****cs are now Windows Vista and Windows XP compatible. Now you can use your lightning-fast PC to unleash the full potential of those games you just couldn't play properly on that busted old 386.

[QUOTE="painguy1"]I know that Tomb Raider legend has a crap load of issues performance wise with vista that i didn't have on XP. I had my settings max on both OS's, Anti-aliasing and all that other junk. Some older games like serious sam or quake 1 might freeze once in a while but later on start working 5 secs later.SEANMCAD

Yet any directX 10 game is not going to work on XP. So I guess when one defines Vista as a hard core gaming OS (like I would argue is accurate) one must assume "hard core" means pushing the games to the limit.

However, if you are into classic games then perhaps Vista is not the OS for that style of gaming

Developers haven't even bothered fully integrating DX10, let alone having the game be DX10 exclusive. DX10 exclusivity will probably be around DX11 or 12.

[QUOTE="Swiftstrike5"]I just found out that Vista Business doens't support DVD codec... So I can't recommend vista to anyone until I solve this =(SEANMCAD

oh jesus joesph!

Vista Ulitmate!

Yeah I want to get business edition so I can use my PC for home activities...

BRILLIANT@!

I was forced to get Business because I had XP professional (not all of us have $300 to throw away on an OS), but I found out I can get Ultimate for only $30 through my college. I still hate microsoft.

[QUOTE="GodLovesDead"][QUOTE="SEANMCAD"]

[QUOTE="painguy1"]I know that Tomb Raider legend has a crap load of issues performance wise with vista that i didn't have on XP. I had my settings max on both OS's, Anti-aliasing and all that other junk. Some older games like serious sam or quake 1 might freeze once in a while but later on start working 5 secs later.SEANMCAD

Yet any directX 10 game is not going to work on XP. So I guess when one defines Vista as a hard core gaming OS (like I would argue is accurate) one must assume "hard core" means pushing the games to the limit.

However, if you are into classic games then perhaps Vista is not the OS for that style of gaming

Developers haven't even bothered fully integrating DX10, let alone having the game be DX10 exclusive. DX10 exclusivity will probably be around DX11 or 12.

yeah i saw that coming and I was hoping I was wrong.

ts like say in year 2000 my tube TV is better becuase not many HDTV channels are out yet....

Vista is positioned for future changes in games, XP is not nor will it be.

So what standard of a gaming OS are we using here?

But the problem XP users are facing is if those changes will arive before the next OS. My answer would be no. Vista isn't the future, but a transition towards the future. I might seem like some huge XP fanboy. But I bought Vista with some expectations. But right from the get-go I noticed it was sluggish, bothersome, and slow compared to XP. There's just no reason to buy Vista when you can have a less-bloated, faster, and more efficient version of it. I still haven't adjusted to the lack of the "Run" function in the start menu.

Short answer is yes. The only real advantage Vista has is it's DirectX 10 support but since DirectX 10 has been a complete wash so far there's no reason to upgrade to Vista unless you're bored. On a side note there are "unofficial" DirectX 10 for XP projects in the works that will probably bring all of the DirectX 10 features to XP. Basically if you're a gamer stick with XP as long as you can. Vista is the Windows ME sequel.fenriz275

must be comming with someone that doesnt have a powerful enough machine to run vista or dx10 properly.

Here are some more details from a computer specialist. Vista has more services and more intensive services than XP. It has an indexer that you can't even disable that helps you search faster. Microsoft is completely out of touch for thinking that gamers would sacrifice memory and CPU resources in order to search faster. It also has Windows Defender which is always on, scanning your computer for spyware. I also read an article that said Directx10 is slower than Directx9 because Directx10 is taken out of the kernel of the OS. This will prevent it from ever being as fast as Directx9.

The only gamers I would recommend get Vista are gamers who never play old games or use old software, and have a brand new, blazing-fast computer. Everyone else should hold out with XP and hope that Windows 7 is worth it.

[QUOTE="SEANMCAD"]

[QUOTE="Swiftstrike5"]I just found out that Vista Business doens't support DVD codec... So I can't recommend vista to anyone until I solve this =(Swiftstrike5

oh jesus joesph!

Vista Ulitmate!

Yeah I want to get business edition so I can use my PC for home activities...

BRILLIANT@!

I was forced to get Business because I had XP professional (not all of us have $300 to throw away on an OS), but I found out I can get Ultimate for only $30 through my college. I still hate microsoft.

Out of curiosity, why were you forced to get Vista Business just because you were previously on Windows XP? Are you on multiple CPUs (not cores) orare you actually needing to be able to connect to domains?

Just curious.

Here are some more details from a computer specialist. Vista has more services and more intensive services than XP. It has an indexer that you can't even disable that helps you search faster. Microsoft is completely out of touch for thinking that gamers would sacrifice memory and CPU resources in order to search faster. It also has Windows Defender which is always on, scanning your computer for spyware. I also read an article that said Directx10 is slower than Directx9 because Directx10 is taken out of the kernel of the OS. This will prevent it from ever being as fast as Directx9.

The only gamers I would recommend get Vista are gamers who never play old games or use old software, and have a brand new, blazing-fast computer. Everyone else should hold out with XP and hope that Windows 7 is worth it.

Falconoffury

Eh, you can disable the search indexer and Defender.

[QUOTE="Falconoffury"]

Here are some more details from a computer specialist. Vista has more services and more intensive services than XP. It has an indexer that you can't even disable that helps you search faster. Microsoft is completely out of touch for thinking that gamers would sacrifice memory and CPU resources in order to search faster. It also has Windows Defender which is always on, scanning your computer for spyware. I also read an article that said Directx10 is slower than Directx9 because Directx10 is taken out of the kernel of the OS. This will prevent it from ever being as fast as Directx9.

The only gamers I would recommend get Vista are gamers who never play old games or use old software, and have a brand new, blazing-fast computer. Everyone else should hold out with XP and hope that Windows 7 is worth it.

jedinat

Eh, you can disable the search indexer and Defender.

not saying you said anythinglike that jedi, i was actually referring to the guy your quoting.

My impression of Vista is it has a higher minimum before your hardware reaches its limit.

What I mean by this is when resources are plentiful both Vista and XP will perform the same, Vista may even perform better in some cases due to better multicore optimisation. However when hardware is under stress; such as your game struggling to maintain 30fps, XP offers a performance advantage because the OS isn't using as many resources as Vista does.

wait you do realize that windows 7 when it is officially announced and released that it will have higher system requirements than vista or xp, thats the way it works.....

Lach0121

I recall hearing Windows 7 is going to have the same, or lower, system requirements than Vista. There are a few news sites around the web echoing that.

wait you do realize that windows 7 when it is officially announced and released that it will have higher system requirements than vista or xp, thats the way it works.....Lach0121

I wonder what it would possibly need more resources for, though. Vista uses more resources mainly because it delegates memory readily to commonly used programs, which decreases startup times on them and such. I can't see what they would add to the next OS that would significantly need yet more RAM and processing power that wouldn't be unnecessary additives.

out of curisosity....if I disable all the vista features (aero effects) and switch it to windows basic ...would that make a difference?Saran09

No, as Vista turns off Aero when you launch a full-screen 3D app.

[QUOTE="SEANMCAD"]

[QUOTE="Swiftstrike5"]I just found out that Vista Business doens't support DVD codec... So I can't recommend vista to anyone until I solve this =(Swiftstrike5

oh jesus joesph!

Vista Ulitmate!

Yeah I want to get business edition so I can use my PC for home activities...

BRILLIANT@!

I was forced to get Business because I had XP professional (not all of us have $300 to throw away on an OS), but I found out I can get Ultimate for only $30 through my college. I still hate microsoft.

There's not much of a difference between Business and Ultimate, though. The core OS is still there, you just miss some of the media functionality and some minor applications that you probably will never use.

I recall hearing Windows 7 is going to have the same, or lower, system requirements than Vista. There are a few news sites around the web echoing that.

AnnoyedDragon

That sounds about right, then, not to mention good for us and good for MS as the best thing they could do with the new OS is to keep it from being as resource-intensive as possible. The perception of new OS's in that respect which Vista has given many people is not a good one, so an OS that requires less, the same, or even just marginally more resources than Vista (so long as it's a substantial upgrade over it, unlike Vista over XP) would be pleasantly surprising and would do wonders for people's initial outlook on it.

I have a duel boot computer that shares the same ram and SLI video cards. I have XP 32 pro and Vista 32 ultimate.

Xp has a better score in 3D mark by a lot...The only game that I have found to be better on Vista was Timeshift. Crysis on very high was not noticible over the high setting at least to me.