vista ultimate or xp pro for cryssis ?

im getting a new pc built for me but he wants to know what operating system i want i got the choice of vista ultimate or xp pro

which should i choose he needs to know today many thanks

Get Vista. It can run both directx 9 and directx 10 so you can choose what fits you best (perfromance vs quality) + you'll be future-proof for any game in the future that mlight need Vista to run.Gog

You're wrong Gog, the user can modify their ini setting to match directx 10 quality in Windows XP. So please cut the crap.

[QUOTE="Gog"]Get Vista. It can run both directx 9 and directx 10 so you can choose what fits you best (perfromance vs quality) + you'll be future-proof for any game in the future that mlight need Vista to run.omegabeer

You're wrong Gog, the user can modify their ini setting to match directx 10 quality in Windows XP. So please cut the crap.

1) Where did I say you couldn't do that in XP?

2) Even if that's true (which is not 100% the case) there is no guarantee you'll be able to do so with future directx 10 titles also

3) Inform yourself instead of acting like a jerk

The problem with running it in Vista is your performance won't be nearly as good, even if you run it in DX10 mode from startup which provides a performance boost over DX9 in Vista. The best thing to do would be to get both, and use a dual-boot system. Vista is more future proof, but for the moment, XP is much less taxing on your system.

By using a bypass to allow very high settings on XP, you can get almost the exact same visual detail as running the game in Vista with DX10. DX10 provides very little in the way of more advanced visuals, being meant more for boosted performance. However, DX10 is only possible in Vista. Since Vista is an excessively performance heavy OS, the boost of DX10 over DX9 in Vista is still worse performance than DX9 in XP, which negates the whole purpose of using Vista for DX10 (since, again, DX10 provides a performance boost, not a noticeable visual advancement).

So, for now, XP is indisputably the better OS for Crysis. But Vista may be more useful for gaming in the future, so it's good to have it on hand in your system.

Something that baffles me is that Vista supposedly devotes most of your system RAM to any application that you use often (if I'm remembering what I've been told well enough). How is it that, despite that, XP still runs that application with much, much better performance? What exactly is it about Vista that makes it so very taxing? If it devotes your system RAM to the application, it can't be a memory issue. Is it doing all kinds of CPU-intensive things in the background as well, or something?

I dual boot, I actually installed Vista for the sole purpose of DX10 gaming.

Now that I have gotten used to it as a primary OS I basically boot into Vista everytime. The thing is... I find performance on Vista so bad, I actually installed Crysis for XP and used performance tweaks to get "Very High" settings @ 1680x1050 I can get almost a stable 30 fps, where as if I tried to do the same in Vista it would stay in the teens.

DX 10 doesnt provide a leap frog advancement ATM if ever ... however for a barely noticeable graphic improvement u have to put up with a loss of frame rate.

get xp .... its the best right now.

give vista maybe another year or two before it is polished

Something that baffles me is that Vista supposedly devotes most of your system RAM to any application that you use often (if I'm remembering what I've been told well enough). How is it that, despite that, XP still runs that application with much, much better performance? What exactly is it about Vista that makes it so very taxing? If it devotes your system RAM to the application, it can't be a memory issue. Is it doing all kinds of CPU-intensive things in the background as well, or something?

JP_Russell

The reason, as I understand it at least, is that they changed the way that Windows works with Vista. By doing so they have also changed the way that companies have to make drivers for hardware (video cards etc) work. The problem with this is that hardware companies aren't that used to the new system, and therefore are still learning how to make efficient drivers.

One problem that I've run into with Vista was the DX9 games virtual memory bug. I have 2GB of RAM, a 2.5GB virtual memory paging file, and games like STALKER and The Witcher were constantly crashing due to "low available memory".

[QUOTE="JP_Russell"]

Something that baffles me is that Vista supposedly devotes most of your system RAM to any application that you use often (if I'm remembering what I've been told well enough). How is it that, despite that, XP still runs that application with much, much better performance? What exactly is it about Vista that makes it so very taxing? If it devotes your system RAM to the application, it can't be a memory issue. Is it doing all kinds of CPU-intensive things in the background as well, or something?

Epipsychidion

The reason, as I understand it at least, is that they changed the way that Windows works with Vista. By doing so they have also changed the way that companies have to make drivers for hardware (video cards etc) work. The problem with this is that hardware companies aren't that used to the new system, and therefore are still learning how to make efficient drivers.

Ah, I see. Well, hopefully its performance will be improved exponentially as drivers for hardware are improved.

I use Vista and if you have a good system with lots of RAM, I highly recommend it. I do notice the difference between windows XP and vista in game, don't judge the differences by photos because you'll think there is hardly any difference.

I run on very high settings 1400x900 with x2AA and the game is immaculate. Granted I had to build a new system in order to achieve those settings but it was well worth it.

Plus, Vista SP1 will be released soon which has gotten great reviews in the beta stages, it fixes numerous problems and increases speed! Good luck.

[QUOTE="JP_Russell"]

Something that baffles me is that Vista supposedly devotes most of your system RAM to any application that you use often (if I'm remembering what I've been told well enough). How is it that, despite that, XP still runs that application with much, much better performance? What exactly is it about Vista that makes it so very taxing? If it devotes your system RAM to the application, it can't be a memory issue. Is it doing all kinds of CPU-intensive things in the background as well, or something?

Epipsychidion

The reason, as I understand it at least, is that they changed the way that Windows works with Vista. By doing so they have also changed the way that companies have to make drivers for hardware (video cards etc) work. The problem with this is that hardware companies aren't that used to the new system, and therefore are still learning how to make efficient drivers.

One problem that I've run into with Vista was the DX9 games virtual memory bug. I have 2GB of RAM, a 2.5GB virtual memory paging file, and games like STALKER and The Witcher were constantly crashing due to "low available memory".

There is a hotfix for that:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/940105

The problem with running it in Vista is your performance won't be nearly as good, even if you run it in DX10 mode from startup which provides a performance boost over DX9 in Vista. The best thing to do would be to get both, and use a dual-boot system. Vista is more future proof, but for the moment, XP is much less taxing on your system.

By using a bypass to allow very high settings on XP, you can get almost the exact same visual detail as running the game in Vista with DX10. DX10 provides very little in the way of more advanced visuals, being meant more for boosted performance. However, DX10 is only possible in Vista. Since Vista is an excessively performance heavy OS, the boost of DX10 over DX9 in Vista is still worse performance than DX9 in XP, which negates the whole purpose of using Vista for DX10 (since, again, DX10 provides a performance boost, not a noticeable visual advancement).

JP_Russell

eh no, direcxt 9 performs better (virtually on par with XP) than direcxt 10 on Vista.

[QUOTE="JP_Russell"]

The problem with running it in Vista is your performance won't be nearly as good, even if you run it in DX10 mode from startup which provides a performance boost over DX9 in Vista. The best thing to do would be to get both, and use a dual-boot system. Vista is more future proof, but for the moment, XP is much less taxing on your system.

By using a bypass to allow very high settings on XP, you can get almost the exact same visual detail as running the game in Vista with DX10. DX10 provides very little in the way of more advanced visuals, being meant more for boosted performance. However, DX10 is only possible in Vista. Since Vista is an excessively performance heavy OS, the boost of DX10 over DX9 in Vista is still worse performance than DX9 in XP, which negates the whole purpose of using Vista for DX10 (since, again, DX10 provides a performance boost, not a noticeable visual advancement).

Gog

eh no, direcxt 9 performs better (virtually on par with XP) than direcxt 10 on Vista.

No, it doesn't. Perhaps not for you, but DX10 is supposed to run better.

Maybe you're a victim of the common misconception that very high settings are what enable DX10. If so, that's not the case. You have to enable DX10 for the game before you start it up. So, all settings can be run in DX9 or DX10. Crytek merely locked out very high settings for anyone using XP and/or a DX9 video card, obviously suggesting a joint effort with Microsoft and the video card companies to deceive people into thinking they had to have Vista and a DX10-capable card to run Crysis at very high.

DX10 provides almost no visual improvement, but it is a more efficient rendering method, allowing more things to be rendered on-screen at a time for the same performance (or the same amount of things on-screen for better performance). Technologically, though, there is little in the way of visual effects that it can render that DX9 can't.

Xp has better framerates and its less glitchy. Plus you cant unlock the so called "dx10" features as in very high options on xp too.

I can't believe there are still people out there who believe directx 10 improves performance over directx 9 while obviously the opposite is true.

Under the same settings, directx 9 is faster than directx 10 and the difference is that much more pronounced in the so called "hacked" very high mode in directx 9.

If new versions of directx were able to improve performance like that we wouldn't need new video cards. Don't believe the marketing nonsense we've had to swallow from MS and Crytek.

I can't believe there are still people out there who believe directx 10 improves performance over directx 9 while obviously the opposite is true.

Under the same settings, directx 9 is faster than directx 10 and the difference is that much more pronounced in the so called "hacked" very high mode in directx 9.

If new versions of directx were able to improve performance like that we wouldn't need new video cards. Don't believe the marketing nonsense we've had to swallow from MS and Crytek.

Gog

I'm not buying into any marketing nonsense, I know DX10 is overhyped. But there was a poster on the Crysis forum a while back showing how he got 10-15 more FPS in DX10 in Vista than DX9 in Vista (the screens he showed were proof as they had the game's framerate display enabled, which also shows what version of DirectX the game is running in, and were comparison shots taken at the exact same points in the game).

If you're getting worse performance in DX10 mode, something is wrong, that's all there is to it. DX10 does provide better performance because it's a more efficient rendering method. Yes, it is overhyped in the sense that it's depicted as being able to do all kinds of things that DX9 can't, which is BS. Almost every graphic effect that can be rendered by DX10 can also be rendered by DX9. But it does render those same things more efficiently.

And contrary to what you said before, DX9 performance in Vista is miles behind DX9 performance in XP. On my father's computer, he has XP and Vista set up in a dual-boot system. He has an 8800GTS 320MB, an E6400, and 4GB of RAM. In Vista in DX9, he can run the game on mostly medium with a couple high settings enabled. In XP, he can put everything on high and still get better framerates.

Coming from an experienced XP and Vista dual-booter, along with a Mac OS X and Fedora Linux user.. XP is better in so many ways.

Vista is XP trying to be Mac OS X and Linux. It fails. There is literally NOTHING you can do in Vista that you can't do in XP, minus the business usefulness of encrypting an entire hard drive. It simply takes up 600 mb of your system's ram to run. It fails. +, "Windows Live" sucks. DO NOT PAY FOR IT(unless you already have a XBL account and just use that).

Anyone that uses Vista makes me sad. Especially to my tech-geek side.

Keep talking, OmegaBeer.....Overweightshino

[QUOTE="Epipsychidion"][QUOTE="JP_Russell"]

Something that baffles me is that Vista supposedly devotes most of your system RAM to any application that you use often (if I'm remembering what I've been told well enough). How is it that, despite that, XP still runs that application with much, much better performance? What exactly is it about Vista that makes it so very taxing? If it devotes your system RAM to the application, it can't be a memory issue. Is it doing all kinds of CPU-intensive things in the background as well, or something?

Gog

The reason, as I understand it at least, is that they changed the way that Windows works with Vista. By doing so they have also changed the way that companies have to make drivers for hardware (video cards etc) work. The problem with this is that hardware companies aren't that used to the new system, and therefore are still learning how to make efficient drivers.

One problem that I've run into with Vista was the DX9 games virtual memory bug. I have 2GB of RAM, a 2.5GB virtual memory paging file, and games like STALKER and The Witcher were constantly crashing due to "low available memory".

There is a hotfix for that:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/940105

I tried that hotfix, but like many others online it did absolutely nothing - still had the same probs after applying it. Oh well, I've gone back to XP now - and no problems with anything whatsoever

Vista == bloatware.

As mentionedpreviously Crysis on XPat Very High outperforms Crysis on Vista at Very High. I highly doubt we will see any AAA titles being vista only in the near future, certainly for other type of software there won't be a need.

Vista is a case of "build it and they will come", constant promises (DirectX10 for gamers, security for companies) to lure enough people into buying it to create growth so Microsoft can ditch XP and generate more money from consumers.

Vista == bloatware.

As mentionedpreviously Crysis on XPat Very High outperforms Crysis on Vista at Very High. I highly doubt we will see any AAA titles being vista only in the near future, certainly for other type of software there won't be a need.

Vista is a case of "build it and they will come", constant promises (DirectX10 for gamers, security for companies) to lure enough people into buying it to create growth so Microsoft can ditch XP and generate more money from consumers.

DJGOON

I couldn't have said it better

so would i be good for vista 32 bit with 4gb of ram? will it be as good as xp with2gb of ram (meaning vista 4gb versus xp 2gb). zxvb

Get Vista. It can run both directx 9 and directx 10 so you can choose what fits you best (perfromance vs quality) + you'll be future-proof for any game in the future that mlight need Vista to run.Gog

[QUOTE="Gog"]

I can't believe there are still people out there who believe directx 10 improves performance over directx 9 while obviously the opposite is true.

Under the same settings, directx 9 is faster than directx 10 and the difference is that much more pronounced in the so called "hacked" very high mode in directx 9.

If new versions of directx were able to improve performance like that we wouldn't need new video cards. Don't believe the marketing nonsense we've had to swallow from MS and Crytek.

JP_Russell

I'm not buying into any marketing nonsense, I know DX10 is overhyped. But there was a poster on the Crysis forum a while back showing how he got 10-15 more FPS in DX10 in Vista than DX9 in Vista (the screens he showed were proof as they had the game's framerate display enabled, which also shows what version of DirectX the game is running in, and were comparison shots taken at the exact same points in the game).

If you're getting worse performance in DX10 mode, something is wrong, that's all there is to it. DX10 does provide better performance because it's a more efficient rendering method. Yes, it is overhyped in the sense that it's depicted as being able to do all kinds of things that DX9 can't, which is BS. Almost every graphic effect that can be rendered by DX10 can also be rendered by DX9. But it does render those same things more efficiently.

And contrary to what you said before, DX9 performance in Vista is miles behind DX9 performance in XP. On my father's computer, he has XP and Vista set up in a dual-boot system. He has an 8800GTS 320MB, an E6400, and 4GB of RAM. In Vista in DX9, he can run the game on mostly medium with a couple high settings enabled. In XP, he can put everything on high and still get better framerates.

Lol, I can't believe you're still preaching this. Especially based on your own and one other guy's alleged experience. Rather than try to convince us, you should try to contact the many technical sights and game review sights and try to convince them they are all wrong and you are right.

No, it doesn't. Perhaps not for you, but DX10 is supposed to run better.JP_Russell