Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 88819	2008-04-10 05:16:00	XP or Vista for Gaming	GeneralKanos (13592)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
657660	2008-04-10 12:18:00	Habits? They're hardly worth mentioning.. For the majority of the world who does Email, a bit of browsing, some word processing and not much else, the change in interface means very little.. So lets do some Googling, Ive chosen to look for Crysis because its one of the most resource intensive games out there (Even though I dont play it myself). So we search for: Benchmark Crysis XP vs Vista First link: gamespot.com, performs better in XP but likes the fancy effects that DX10 gives. Vote went to XP Second link, cdg.net, roughly the same, depends on your application by the sounds of it though... Crysis ran better in XP but Vista benchmarking scores won at the end of the day. Vote went to Vista. Third link, digg.com link to news.com, compares XP SP3 and Vista SP1. While not a graphical comparison of Crysis, the vote goes to XP for performance / speed. 4th link is 32 vs 64-bit, not really what we're after, lets skip this one. 4th link, a neowin.net article, sums up by saying: Seven out of ten of the games tested produced frame rate averages which were lower under Vista than XP SP2, however, a closer look at the numbers shows that when Vista is slower than XP SP2, the actual frame rate differences are only in the single digits. So while it sounds like there are performance increases in XP, are you looking for the latest "Wow" with Vista (The Wow starts now??)? Results have been quite mixed at LAN parties using Vista... Or do you want to squeeze out every last little bit of performance possible? Just thought I'd throw that in the mix ;)	Chilling_Silence (9)
657661	2008-04-10 12:21:00	Here's an idea, we should see if we can get PCWorld to do some benchmarking all around, Id read that article :) Especially if they threw in a review of a Linux distro for the one or two games that *do* work :p I can see it now! WinXP SP3 vs Vista SP1 vs Ubuntu 8.04 gaming benchmarks! Wonder if we could even throw in a Mac for a laugh :D Wouldnt be terribly hard, get 3x identical HDD's, wipe them all, install XP SP3 on one, fully patch the OS & update Graphics with the latest stable. Install Games X Y & Z, patch / update, benchmark, take out HDD and insert the 2nd HDD. Repeat steps for Vista & Ubuntu... Man now I actually really wanna see that review done! :p Jan? :D	Chilling_Silence (9)
657662	2008-04-10 22:12:00	They why get a DX 10 card if you're staying on DX 9? I mean, that's a waste of money. Alot of future games are going to be dx 10 only Because they are the new cards, and even if not using DX10, its still better performance. And yes, DX10 is the future. But its not the present yet.	pctek (84)
657663	2008-04-11 00:46:00	I dual boot XP and Vista There are NO "native" DX10 games yet, hence nearly every game I have runs slightly worse under Vista (including Vista DX9 mode). Any tiny eye candy improvement is simply not worth the performance hit, Hence I game in XP. As above DX10 is the future, but its not the present, even games like Crysis are native DX9 games with DX10 API calls strapons.	Battleneter2 (9361)
657664	2008-04-11 00:54:00	Because there is less overhead - Vista takes waaay more system resources to run than XP, which means more resources to play games with if you use XP. My PC dual-boots XP and Vista because of this. Are you talking about the RAM use?......You do realise that this RAM is merely moved the the prefetch cache? Are you spouting FUD you have heard or are you talking through experience? Vista SP1 is just as fast as XP if not faster!	SolMiester (139)
657665	2008-04-11 00:54:00	My view is that, most people are going to use it for normal jobs like surfing, email, MS Office and Skype and MSN and the odd game. The difference is hardly worth anything to me. For me its if you want XP or Vista. If I was buying a new computer now I would get Vista and being Microsoft they tend eventually release updates to the latest OS only. So if you want DX10 or 11 or IE latest version (whatever it is as I forget since I use Firefox now) .. get Vista. And then in the future it would be a newer OS yet again .. My laptop is still using Windows 2000. At the time people were debating with Windows 98/ME or Windows 2000 and then they debated Windows 2000 or XP. The XP user interfaced got debated too .... I'm still using MSN the older version, IE the older version but it works. DX don't know because I don't play games on this but certainly .. I the latest DX won't work with this OS....	Nomad (952)
657666	2008-04-11 00:59:00	Just for the cost, why would you buy XP now and buy Vista later. Why do your HDD now and redo it later. Vista is out with 1 SP, I would get that and continue walking down that path than to go backwards. If XP was out at that era, do we stay with Windows 2000 or Win98/ME? That is if Vista would work on your system... and the accessories.	Nomad (952)
657667	2008-04-11 01:05:00	DX10 is the future. But its not the present yet. Yet... That's the keyword. If you're throwing that much money at a machine (and you're talking a lot about future proofing too) then why go with XP? I personally like XP, especially over vista, but for gaming you really want to stay on top for as long as possible. As for Windows 7... you really want to wait until 2011 to upgrade your OS? If so... why?	Thebananamonkey (7741)
657668	2008-04-11 01:10:00	Because I already have XP, I may as well just put it on my HDD and in the future, however soon or far off, I will put Vista on my second HDD. Im not going backwards mate, I haven't moved forwards yet...	GeneralKanos (13592)
657669	2008-04-11 01:21:00	Never liked dual booting. Adds complexity, takes more disk space. I don't want to dual boot OS each time the computer starts or to install the software on more than one time... If a printer does not support Vista I rather just buy another printer so it works .. You are going to buy Vista later anyway, and it saves you to reinstall/install Vista then.	Nomad (952)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9