Vista is quite good for gaming

I've always noticed that many people described "Vista" as a bad program for our computers,not achieving an adequate standard for playing computer software.Wasn't "Windows Xp" bad at the beginning?

Closing some unnecessary processes with "msconfig" makes my operating system consume around 620 MB of memory.It performs quite well if you have around 4 Gb running with "Dual Channel" using "Vista X64".Plus add the fact that "Direct X 10.1"(From "Service Pack 1") enhances the graphic quality and creates a more stable performance,better than "Windows XP".

I understand many people don't have the money to spend on a good computer,but people that have advanced hardware must give "Vista" a try.

Right now,i'm playing "Assassin's Creed" and "Tiberium Sun",the both run very smooth and "Assassin's" with "Direct X 10" looks tremendous! ;)

hmmm... i dont think its wise to show ur product Id but then again the product id is not the same as your product key.

No, no, no...

1. XP consumes alot less resources than vista

2. XP has better video drivers

3. XP is alot more stable

4. So far DX10 has shown nothing more than bad performance and features which are doable on DX9.

5. Vista costs like ****.

6. XP gives you much higher fps

I cannot see why would anyone use VIsta for gaming.

620MB!! That is ridiculous memory usage for just the OS no matter how much RAM you have in my opinion. The XP machine I'm on right now is using 604MB - and that's with Firefox, iTunes, AutoCAD 2008, Windows Live Messenger and five other startup programs running in the background (37 processes total). If it wasn't for DX10 I wouldn't even consider using Vista, but I have to at least consider it if I want to upgrade my gaming PC. And yes, I use Vista almost daily as it came on my laptop unfortunately.Bane_v2

That's superfetch pre-loading programs to memory which is much faster than loading from a hard drive. The actual OS consumes 300 - 400MB and releases on demand. I guess you prefer memory to sit there idling when we have so much.

Sure, it's good. It's just not as good as XP.

Plus add the fact that "Direct X 10.1"(From "Service Pack 1") enhances the graphic quality and creates a more stable performance,better than "Windows XP".

Rylsadar

Those are what regular DX10 was said to do, but so far, the former is only just barely true and the latter has been a flatout lie in most cases. I'm not confident 10.1 will be any different, myself.

People can talk about how Vista is just fine as a gaming OS all they want. That's true, it is. But the fact remains that what advantage it has over XP for gaming (DX10, and that's it) is far, far outweighed by its worse performance (varying from slightly to extremely) and its worse compatibility with older games. Those are to be expected, of course, but what's also expected is some kind of significant advantage to compensate for or outweigh those downsides, and the truth is, right now Vista has pretty much no reasonable advantage over XP as a gaming OS.

That's superfetch pre-loading programs to memory which is much faster than loading from a hard drive. The actual OS consumes 300 - 400MB and releases on demand. I guess you prefer memory to sit there idling when we have so much.Deihmos

[QUOTE="Deihmos"]That's superfetch pre-loading programs to memory which is much faster than loading from a hard drive. The actual OS consumes 300 - 400MB and releases on demand. I guess you prefer memory to sit there idling when we have so much.Bane_v2

I wonder how you felt about Windows 98 to XP. 98 only needed 24MB while XP needs 128MB. You probably said XP was a memory hog.

I wonder how you felt about Windows 98 to XP. 98 only needed 24MB while XP needs 128MB. You probably said XP was a memory hog.Deihmos

[QUOTE="Deihmos"]I wonder how you felt about Windows 98 to XP. 98 only needed 24MB while XP needs 128MB. You probably said XP was a memory hog.Bane_v2

Why would I be offended? it doesn't matter to me. i was just making a point that every future OS will use more memory than the previous. Technology is moving forward not backwards.

[QUOTE="Bane_v2"][QUOTE="Deihmos"]I wonder how you felt about Windows 98 to XP. 98 only needed 24MB while XP needs 128MB. You probably said XP was a memory hog.Deihmos

Why would I be offended? it doesn't matter to me. i was just making a point that every future OS will use more memory than the previous. Technology is moving forward not backwards.

Well idk about Microsoft's technology its more like moving wider than upward.

No, no, no...

1. XP consumes alot less resources than vista

2. XP has better video drivers

3. XP is alot more stable

4. So far DX10 has shown nothing more than bad performance and features which are doable on DX9.

5. Vista costs like ****.

6. XP gives you much higher fps

I cannot see why would anyone use VIsta for gaming.

Pessu

With service pack one for Vista it actually brings XP and Vista on a par and neither is better nor worse anymore. Go check out the comparisons.

lol what a douche... he gave away his product ID. lolJuglo

No need to call him a douche because you are too stupid to know that an oem version id is locked on his motherboard and can't be transfered.

No, no, no...

1. XP consumes alot less resources than vista

2. XP has better video drivers

3. XP is alot more stable

4. So far DX10 has shown nothing more than bad performance and features which are doable on DX9.

5. Vista costs like ****.

6. XP gives you much higher fps

I cannot see why would anyone use VIsta for gaming.

Pessu

Yes Yes Yes

1) The only one that was correct

2) XP doesn't have better drivers it has drivers and so does Vista :| and they all work great

3) O really? I wonder what Xp I have because I sure as hell thought it would get f-ed up from a minor virus and after a month or max two it would run like crap, I guess not having a problem with Vista in about 8 months should mean it's not stable.

4) How naive can you be to think that DX10 and it's effects would need the same amount of graphical processing power as the DX9?

5) Vista Home Premium costs as much as XP Pro

6) In what? Crysis? Pokemon? Wolfenstein 3D? - the fps problem and the DX10 are the most stupid complaints about Vista :|

I can't see how you can comment on Vista, not using it all the time, because I'm guessing you didn't use it much, if you really did.

[QUOTE="Pessu"]

No, no, no...

1. XP consumes alot less resources than vista

2. XP has better video drivers

3. XP is alot more stable

4. So far DX10 has shown nothing more than bad performance and features which are doable on DX9.

5. Vista costs like ****.

6. XP gives you much higher fps

I cannot see why would anyone use VIsta for gaming.

DanielDust

Yes Yes Yes

1) The only one that was correct

2) XP doesn't have better drivers it has drivers and so does Vista :| and they all work great

3) O really? I wonder what Xp I have because I sure as hell thought it would get f-ed up from a minor virus and after a month or max two it would run like crap, I guess not having a problem with Vista in about 8 months should mean it's not stable.

4) How naive can you be to think that DX10 and it's effects would need the same amount of graphical processing power as the DX9?

5) Vista Home Premium costs as much as XP Pro

6) In what? Crysis? Pokemon? Wolfenstein 3D? - the fps problem and the DX10 are the most stupid complaints about Vista :|

I can't see how you can comment on Vista, not using it all the time, because I'm guessing you didn't use it much, if you really did.

3) That is one thing i hate about XP. It will be fast when you first install it but then it gets slower and slower. Vista is actually the first Microsoft OS to tune itself so you don't have to do anything. I haven't done a defrag or any tuning and everything is still fast.

Well idk about Microsoft's technology its more like moving wider than upward.04dcarraher

Depends on what you want. If you want pretty visual effects and ok performance then vista is fine. All i care about is how much fps and how high resolution i can push my games. Not to mention there was 3 games i could not get to run at all in vista that ran fine in xp.

Crysis average 5 to 7 fps higher then vista

Ut3 average 10 to 15 higher in vista

I had vista for about 4 months and i upgraded back, will never try vista again. Will try the new windows os and maybe server 2008 later, heard a lot of good things about 2008.

In the end depends on what you want, you can have your pretty visual effects i'll take the 10 to 30% performance gain instead thx :) and by the time I actually need directx 10 I'll either be using 2008 or the new os after that...

edited because my spelling and gramer suck :)

Almost all benchmarks reveal that gaming performance on Vista is much worse than on XP. In some cases, drops in FPS ranged from 5 - 15fps. That's quite a lot especially if your PC is already barely coping. greatbigmouth

Link please? Maybe when Vista was first released but the video drivers have now caught up. As someone else mentioned regarding RAM, it is extremely cheap these days. I recently purchase 4GB DDR2 ram kit for my vista 64 machine for $50!

Crysis average 5 to 7 fps higher then vista

Ut3 average 10 to 15 higher in vista

strikerthrex

Actually Crysis runs the best in Vista 64.

[QUOTE="strikerthrex"]

Crysis average 5 to 7 fps higher then vista

Ut3 average 10 to 15 higher in vista

Gooeykat

Actually Crysis runs the best in Vista 64.

i had vista 64 bit. Guess fraps was lying and the fact that is was almost unplayable , under 7fps in vista, was just my imagination and btw i run 2003 not xp.

Have you owned both? I did had it installed on both service packs drivers etc played same sections and recorded the fps. Not that crysis is the end all anywho. If you want to go off other sites benchmarks what they say go for. I'll go by personal experience thx.

And in case your wondering E8400, Geforce 8800GT and 4gigs of Ram

[QUOTE="greatbigmouth"]Almost all benchmarks reveal that gaming performance on Vista is much worse than on XP. In some cases, drops in FPS ranged from 5 - 15fps. That's quite a lot especially if your PC is already barely coping. Gooeykat

Link please? Maybe when Vista was first released but the video drivers have now caught up. As someone else mentioned regarding RAM, it is extremely cheap these days. I recently purchase 4GB DDR2 ram kit for my vista 64 machine for $50!

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xp-vs-vista,1531-4.html

This is only on 4 games. Do a quick search on google and you'll find that almost every single game runs worse on Vista.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xp-vs-vista,1531-4.html

This is only on 4 games. Do a quick search on google and you'll find that almost every single game runs worse on Vista.

greatbigmouth

A benchmark from January 2007 and it doesn't show a difference in anything. Maybe you think there is some difference between 395 frames and 362. Most LCDs can't show more than 60 - 75.

like 95 over Win 3.11, and 98 over 95, and millenium (ugh) over 98, and xp over millenium or 98, each new OS has had it's share of issues at launch.

fact is, the Vista launch, in comparison to the aforementioned, was actually a little bit better. just think, all you Vista haters will be saying the same things when the next OS is released and you defend why you're still keeping Vista installed. oh the lovely irony :)

Vista has caught up a lot over the last year, i'm personally very pleased with my own Vista system (and my XP one right next to it).

Actually Crysis runs the best in Vista 64.Gooeykat

Does "Crysis" support "Vista x64"?

And if it does,why doesn't the game install in the normal "Program Files" from the beginning?

[QUOTE="Gooeykat"]Actually Crysis runs the best in Vista 64.Rylsadar

Does "Crysis" support "Vista x64"?

And if it does,why doesn't the game install in the normal "Program Files" from the beginning?

Yes it does support x64, that's why it has bin 32 and bin 64 :|, it was designed to work on X64.

[QUOTE="greatbigmouth"]Almost all benchmarks reveal that gaming performance on Vista is much worse than on XP. In some cases, drops in FPS ranged from 5 - 15fps. That's quite a lot especially if your PC is already barely coping. Gooeykat

Link please? Maybe when Vista was first released but the video drivers have now caught up. As someone else mentioned regarding RAM, it is extremely cheap these days. I recently purchase 4GB DDR2 ram kit for my vista 64 machine for $50!

Thats $50 extra for a piece of hardware that isn't needed on XP.. Right now vista matchs or is alittle lower in performance.. For What? A new UI? And DX10 affects that arn't even worth getting? Sorry Xp is by far the better choice right now..

[QUOTE="Gooeykat"][QUOTE="strikerthrex"]

Crysis average 5 to 7 fps higher then vista

Ut3 average 10 to 15 higher in vista

strikerthrex

Actually Crysis runs the best in Vista 64.

i had vista 64 bit. Guess fraps was lying and the fact that is was almost unplayable , under 7fps in vista, was just my imagination and btw i run 2003 not xp.

Have you owned both? I did had it installed on both service packs drivers etc played same sections and recorded the fps. Not that crysis is the end all anywho. If you want to go off other sites benchmarks what they say go for. I'll go by personal experience thx.

And in case your wondering E8400, Geforce 8800GT and 4gigs of Ram

I have owned both XP and then upgraded to Vista 32 and then 64. I'm going by personal experiences and articles I've seen on the web.

Here is a more recent comparison of gaming done by Firing Squad (still kind of old Sept 07).

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_nvidia_windows_vista_driver_performance_update/

Here is a link of Crysis performance in Vista 32 vs Vista 64 done by Legion Hardware. Doesn't show XP, I'll keep snooping around.

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=698&p=7

[QUOTE="Gooeykat"]

[QUOTE="greatbigmouth"]Almost all benchmarks reveal that gaming performance on Vista is much worse than on XP. In some cases, drops in FPS ranged from 5 - 15fps. That's quite a lot especially if your PC is already barely coping. sSubZerOo

Link please? Maybe when Vista was first released but the video drivers have now caught up. As someone else mentioned regarding RAM, it is extremely cheap these days. I recently purchase 4GB DDR2 ram kit for my vista 64 machine for $50!

Thats $50 extra for a piece of hardware that isn't needed on XP.. Right now vista matchs or is alittle lower in performance.. For What? A new UI? And DX10 affects that arn't even worth getting? Sorry Xp is by far the better choice right now..

Hmm...yeah, I didn't buy for gaming performance. My gaming in Vista was fine with 2 GB (but it older, slower memory) so I decided to upgrade. What I foun was that the 2GB RAM Kits were in most cases just as expensive as the 4GB Ram kits. My point was that RAM is cheap these days and really not reason for not going with Vista.

No, no, no...

1. XP consumes alot less resources than vista

2. XP has better video drivers

3. XP is alot more stable

4. So far DX10 has shown nothing more than bad performance and features which are doable on DX9.

5. Vista costs like ****.

6. XP gives you much higher fps

I cannot see why would anyone use VIsta for gaming.

Pessu

What he said..

XP is 7 years older than Vista. Obviously it runs better. Your 7-year old games run faster than your new ones also, don't they?

Besides, the performance difference in recent games is small or insignificant. It's not like Vista got faster, it's just that programs are taking into account the new OS. Older games are not optimized for Vista and demonstrate a larger performance gap. Since they are older, they run good on newer hardware anyway.

[QUOTE="Pessu"]

No, no, no...

1. XP consumes alot less resources than vista

2. XP has better video drivers

3. XP is alot more stable

4. So far DX10 has shown nothing more than bad performance and features which are doable on DX9.

5. Vista costs like ****.

6. XP gives you much higher fps

I cannot see why would anyone use VIsta for gaming.

OgreB

What he said..

The only truth in those statements is the first one. The rest are lies and misconceptions. And considering RAM is almost cheaper than gas these days... The first point is moot.

This is just the standard "Wah Wah change is bad" **** and moaning you see all the time.

With service pack one for Vista it actually brings XP and Vista on a par and neither is better nor worse anymore. Go check out the comparisons.

VinnoT

I've compared them myself before. My father has Vista SP1 and XP SP3 in dual-boot configuration. As before SP1, no game I have tested on Vista suffers from less than a 5 FPS penalty over XP. Most are about 8-10, and some games are as much as ~15 average frames slower. I've noticed, if I pay reeeaaally close attention to the framerate number, that the frames seem to be about a frame, frame and a half faster in particularly areas than they used to be before SP1 (if I'm remembering right). Oh joy.

4) How naive can you be to think that DX10 and it's effects would need the same amount of graphical processing power as the DX9?

DanielDust

DX10 was continually hyped for both its increased graphical quality and the fact that it was supposed to be more efficient than DX9 performance-wise. So far, the second part has turned out to be a lie for most people in most DX10 games.

6) In what? Crysis? Pokemon? Wolfenstein 3D? - the fps problem and the DX10 are the most stupid complaints about Vista :|

DanielDust

So far, I've tested it in Crysis, Battlefield 2, Battlefield 2142, FEAR, Far Cry, Serious Sam 2, STALKER, Oblivion, and Call of Duty 4. Again, all were no less than 5 frames per second slower in Vista than in XP at any given time.

3) That is one thing i hate about XP. It will be fast when you first install it but then it gets slower and slower. Vista is actually the first Microsoft OS to tune itself so you don't have to do anything. I haven't done a defrag or any tuning and everything is still fast.

Deihmos

I haven't had that problem, myself, though I'm sure it can happen. I've had my current install of XP going... man, 2 years at least, I think? Exact same speed it was when I formatted the drive and installed XP.

[QUOTE="OgreB"][QUOTE="Pessu"]

No, no, no...

1. XP consumes alot less resources than vista

2. XP has better video drivers

3. XP is alot more stable

4. So far DX10 has shown nothing more than bad performance and features which are doable on DX9.

5. Vista costs like ****.

6. XP gives you much higher fps

I cannot see why would anyone use VIsta for gaming.

WDT-BlackKat

What he said..

The only truth in those statements is the first one. The rest are lies and misconceptions. And considering RAM is almost cheaper than gas these days... The first point is moot.

This is just the standard "Wah Wah change is bad" **** and moaning you see all the time.

I agree because I know personally....I have Vista and I tried it for months but I just recently went back to XP.

So there is no wah wah I have to change crude ! I just don't like it and the tiny bit of eyecandy that DX10 has is not worth the performance and other hassles of Vista. ( I have a q6700, GTX etc

Especially since most the eyecandy is tweakable for XP ( Crysis anyone ? )

So I know from personal experience that Vista is not all it's cracked up to be...even Microsoft realizes that and is putting out a new OS in 09.....says something huh ?

[QUOTE="WDT-BlackKat"][QUOTE="OgreB"][QUOTE="Pessu"]

No, no, no...

1. XP consumes alot less resources than vista

2. XP has better video drivers

3. XP is alot more stable

4. So far DX10 has shown nothing more than bad performance and features which are doable on DX9.

5. Vista costs like ****.

6. XP gives you much higher fps

I cannot see why would anyone use VIsta for gaming.

OgreB

What he said..

The only truth in those statements is the first one. The rest are lies and misconceptions. And considering RAM is almost cheaper than gas these days... The first point is moot.

This is just the standard "Wah Wah change is bad" **** and moaning you see all the time.

I agree because I know personally....I have Vista and I tried it for months but I just recently went back to XP.

So there is no wah wah I have to change crude ! I just don't like it and the tiny bit of eyecandy that DX10 has is not worth the performance and other hassles of Vista. ( I have a q6700, GTX etc

Especially since most the eyecandy is tweakable for XP ( Crysis anyone ? )

So I know from personal experience that Vista is not all it's cracked up to be...even Microsoft realizes that and is putting out a new OS in 09.....says something huh ?

Yeah it says. It says that the era of Windows CE, Win ME, Win NT (in short CEMENT) is beginning again :|. If it will be released in 2009 then the new ones will probably be released from 2 to 2 years. The path you follow dark it is XD. So far only 3 operating systems were good from all the rest, Windows 95, Xp and Vista (server ed not included). So yeah I will be looking forward for the next fall of MS.

If you call your self a gamer, then you must have a good config PC. A good gaming machine can easily handle vista + new games.

Mt config is:

Athlon X2 4000+

4 GB RAM

8600 GTS

It runs vista ultimate 64 bit FLAWLESSLY.I have finished crysis , Cod4 ,world in conflict, Gears of war,etc on medium settings with more than satisfactory visuals.

I compared Bioshock 360 and Pc versions and found that bioshock looks better on my pc than 360 (!!!!)

Vista makes better usage of the CPU and are more efficirnt towards multi cores.

XP is 7 years older than Vista. Obviously it runs better. Your 7-year old games run faster than your new ones also, don't they?

Besides, the performance difference in recent games is small or insignificant. It's not like Vista got faster, it's just that programs are taking into account the new OS. Older games are not optimized for Vista and demonstrate a larger performance gap. Since they are older, they run good on newer hardware anyway.

Gog

[QUOTE="WDT-BlackKat"][QUOTE="OgreB"][QUOTE="Pessu"]

No, no, no...

1. XP consumes alot less resources than vista

2. XP has better video drivers

3. XP is alot more stable

4. So far DX10 has shown nothing more than bad performance and features which are doable on DX9.

5. Vista costs like ****.

6. XP gives you much higher fps

I cannot see why would anyone use VIsta for gaming.

OgreB

What he said..

The only truth in those statements is the first one. The rest are lies and misconceptions. And considering RAM is almost cheaper than gas these days... The first point is moot.

This is just the standard "Wah Wah change is bad" **** and moaning you see all the time.

I agree because I know personally....I have Vista and I tried it for months but I just recently went back to XP.

So there is no wah wah I have to change crude ! I just don't like it and the tiny bit of eyecandy that DX10 has is not worth the performance and other hassles of Vista. ( I have a q6700, GTX etc

Especially since most the eyecandy is tweakable for XP ( Crysis anyone ? )

So I know from personal experience that Vista is not all it's cracked up to be...even Microsoft realizes that and is putting out a new OS in 09.....says something huh ?