Vista or Xp for gaming?

Either one; it doesn't really matter. Both are perfectly suitable for gaming at this point. With Vista you'll be a couple frames per second behind XP in some games, but it isn't a difference significant enough to matter at all. Besides, Vista's performance is improving pretty regularly.

If you're buying DX10 hardware, go ahead and get Vista. You might want to play around with the Vista installation, though..a few features and services are worth disabling in some cases (File Indexing, Superfetch, UAC, and the rather annoying 'Windows Defender' are just a few I have disabled.)

xp all the way, just get a good graphics card and some more ramdandyman94

Yup, then install Vista and you have DirectX 10 too :D

[QUOTE="dandyman94"]xp all the way, just get a good graphics card and some more ramStr8jackitz

Yup, then install Vista and you have DirectX 10 too :D

Why, you can get DX10 on XP as well. Yes, I've tried it on my Mac with XP and it works.

Vista is just a resource hog and completely ill suited to handle games, period. Even on a high end system, Vista is very unstable. Stick with XP. Vista is just all flash and no substance.Snaptrap

I take you have never used Vista. It is very stable, and quite well suited to run games.

I take you have never used Vista. It is very stable, and quite well suited to run games.

ch5richards

I have and it isn't, even with SP1. It basically slices your PC specs in half when it comes to performance. Go into Windows Explorer and select Control Panel. Then click the back button. This works great. I had a friend do it and he ended up reinstalling Vista. What it does is alter your folder view settings and they can't be changed at all. You're also prohibited from selecting multiple folder items with either mouse or keyboard.

Yes, I've also used Vista x64 and I notice no changes. Taking a look at the benchmarks around the net with various OS' makes a statement all its own. The only time you'll need more than 4GB's of RAM for games is when you're running Vista. The offerings just don't justify the takings.

[QUOTE="ch5richards"]

I take you have never used Vista. It is very stable, and quite well suited to run games.

Snaptrap

I have and it isn't, even with SP1. It basically slices your PC specs in half when it comes to performance. Go into Windows Explorer and select Control Panel. Then click the back button. This works great. I had a friend do it and he ended up reinstalling Vista. What it does is alter your folder view settings and they can't be changed at all. You're also prohibited from selecting multiple folder items with either mouse or keyboard.

Yes, I've also used Vista x64 and I notice no changes. Taking a look at the benchmarks around the net with various OS' makes a statement all its own. The only time you'll need more than 4GB's of RAM for games is when you're running Vista. The offerings just don't justify the takings.

And, with that, you demolish what little of your credibility remained after all of the nonsense that preceded this line.

Firstly, Vista performs very closely to XP in most applications, and Vista's performance is closer to XP than ever (and even better in a couple games) with the release of Service Pack 1. As for requiring 4GB of RAM for gaming: you're talking absolute nonsense. You can max out ANY recent game with 2GB of RAM in Vista.

Vista critics seem to be obsessed with the fact that the operating system utilizes memory at system idle. Is it needlessly "wasting memory?" No. Wasting memory would be what XP does: sitting there without utilizing the hardware available to it. Vista (with Superfetch enabled) pre-loads resources for frequently-used programs to improve performance, which is why it consumes more memory. If you have Superfetch enabled, you will see a noticible improvement in system responsiveness and program start-up times

At the same time, Superfetch also releases those pre-loaded resources when a memory-intensive application (such as a modern game) comes in to focus. Just to give you an idea of to what extent: after exiting a game, I see total physical memory consumption down in the 300MB range since, up until that point, whatever I was playing had priority on physical memory.

And let me close with this: if there were any significant performance differences between the two, I would've went back to XP LONG ago. Vista had a pretty rough launch, but there really aren't many legitimate criticisms remaining. If you're a gamer with decent hardware, there isn't a discernable performance difference between Vista and XP.

At this point, there simply isn't any reason to use XP over Vista (unless you have old hardware.) Similarly, there's not many reasons to "upgrade" to Vista if you already have XP..hence, my "go with either" post above. As someone who has used both thoroughly, the experience with both operating systems is pretty much the same, especially when it comes to gaming.

Vista critics seem to be obsessed with the fact that the operating system utilizes memory at system idle. Is it needlessly "wasting memory?" No. Wasting memory would be what XP does: sitting there without utilizing the hardware available to it. Vista (with Superfetch enabled) pre-loads resources for frequently-used programs to improve performance, which is why it consumes more memory. If you have Superfetch enabled, you will see a noticible improvement in system responsiveness and program start-up times

Velocitas8

You make an excellent point. Hard drives are pretty much the slowest part of computers and I for one prefer the OS to take advantage of as much memory as possible. What is the point of having so much memory if it sits there doing nothing like it does in Windows XP. When XP launched 256MB was considered a lot but now 1GB and up is standard. Anyone playing games should have at least 2GB even if using Windows XP.

[QUOTE="Snaptrap"][QUOTE="ch5richards"]

I take you have never used Vista. It is very stable, and quite well suited to run games.

Velocitas8

I have and it isn't, even with SP1. It basically slices your PC specs in half when it comes to performance. Go into Windows Explorer and select Control Panel. Then click the back button. This works great. I had a friend do it and he ended up reinstalling Vista. What it does is alter your folder view settings and they can't be changed at all. You're also prohibited from selecting multiple folder items with either mouse or keyboard.

Yes, I've also used Vista x64 and I notice no changes. Taking a look at the benchmarks around the net with various OS' makes a statement all its own. The only time you'll need more than 4GB's of RAM for games is when you're running Vista. The offerings just don't justify the takings.

And, with that, you demolish what little of your credibility remained after all of the nonsense that preceded this line.

Firstly, Vista performs very closely to XP in most applications, and Vista's performance is closer to XP than ever (and even better in a couple games) with the release of Service Pack 1. As for requiring 4GB of RAM for gaming: you're talking absolute nonsense. You can max out ANY recent game with 2GB of RAM in Vista.

Vista critics seem to be obsessed with the fact that the operating system utilizes memory at system idle. Is it needlessly "wasting memory?" No. Wasting memory would be what XP does: sitting there without utilizing the hardware available to it. Vista (with Superfetch enabled) pre-loads resources for frequently-used programs to improve performance, which is why it consumes more memory. If you have Superfetch enabled, you will see a noticible improvement in system responsiveness and program start-up times

At the same time, Superfetch also releases those pre-loaded resources when a memory-intensive application (such as a modern game) comes in to focus. Just to give you an idea of to what extent: after exiting a game, I see total physical memory consumption down in the 300MB range since, up until that point, whatever I was playing had priority on physical memory.

And let me close with this: if there were any significant performance differences between the two, I would've went back to XP LONG ago. Vista had a pretty rough launch, but there really aren't many legitimate criticisms remaining. If you're a gamer with decent hardware, there isn't a discernable performance difference between Vista and XP.

At this point, there simply isn't any reason to use XP over Vista (unless you have old hardware.) Similarly, there's not many reasons to "upgrade" to Vista if you already have XP..hence, my "go with either" post above. As someone who has used both thoroughly, the experience with both operating systems is pretty much the same, especially when it comes to gaming.

well said. Vista (64bit) is the future, I am pretty happy of it so far and I only know 1 game that is not working and it's fable:the lost chapter published by mmm M$...

[QUOTE="ch5richards"]

I take you have never used Vista. It is very stable, and quite well suited to run games.

Snaptrap

I have and it isn't, even with SP1. It basically slices your PC specs in half when it comes to performance. Go into Windows Explorer and select Control Panel. Then click the back button. This works great. I had a friend do it and he ended up reinstalling Vista. What it does is alter your folder view settings and they can't be changed at all. You're also prohibited from selecting multiple folder items with either mouse or keyboard.

Yes, I've also used Vista x64 and I notice no changes. Taking a look at the benchmarks around the net with various OS' makes a statement all its own. The only time you'll need more than 4GB's of RAM for games is when you're running Vista. The offerings just don't justify the takings.

Yeh im building a budget machine Less than $1200 AUD (Including monitor)

No for a Few months like 6+ Where is the cheapest place to buy vista 64 bit

ive got a good 1 for ya: DUAL-BOOT!!GTR2addict

sounds good actually

[QUOTE="GTR2addict"]ive got a good 1 for ya: DUAL-BOOT!!jacksik

sounds good actually

On my Mac I just dual boot into Windows XP for access to PC exclusive software. Game performance is a heck of allot better without the need to beef up your system and OS 10.5 pretty much takes care of any Vista offering. So a suggestion would be to dual boot XP for games if you want certain Vista features. It's not practical, but you'll get allot more gaming juice from your hardware.

As of now there is almost no difference in graphics between DX10 and DX9. Maybe a few water and smoke effecs look a little better but nothing significant enough to make you install Vista. Even the "Ultra high" setting in Crysis that is only accessible to Vista/DX10 users can be tweaked to run on XP and it looks no different from DX9 to DX10. Stick with XP and gain some frames per second.

Have a look for yourself with Crysis and Bioshock.

...the experience with both operating systems is pretty much the same, especially when it comes to gaming.

Velocitas8

Some games perform better on Vista and vice-versa. If you have a mid to high range system, either should be fine. Just go with the one you think you'll like better. I like XP, but when I upgrade I'll probably go with Vista just to get the feeling of something newer. Also, Toono Akiha.

basically my advice is this:

if u have XP on ure current rig and are happy with it then stick with it. it continues to do a great job on the gaming front and the benefits of vista in terms of games isnt all that great (in some ways its a hinderence).

however if u need a new OS (maybe for a new PC) then u may as well go for vista. from what im hearing its in much better shape now and SP1 also improves alot of stuff with the OS. the cost of vista OEM and XP oem are basically the same so u may as well just bite the bullet. just make sure that the hardware ure getting with ure rig will work fine under vista and ull be good to go.

Ive already got a xp in my family room but not gaming and im thinking of building myself a gaming PC what operating system should i choose Gaming Wise.jacksik