| 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 | ||
| 657710 | 2008-04-15 05:41:00 | So Im looking back at this, you seem to be arguing in circles. First you're saying you should use 64-bit Vista to get the best performance and that way you can run Supreme Commander at max EVERYTHING, but then you go and say its fine to take a 20% hit? Why not just stick with a 32-bit OS and turn *down* the detail levels a little etc, then you wont hit the memory issue, even if you have 2x 1GB Graphics Cards, you can still run Supreme Commander with 1GB Ram! I dunno what you're missing, but its not making much sense here :-/ You need to read threads properly! I said 10% hit on a PC thats already 20-25% faster than most gamers PC's |
SolMiester (139) | ||
| 657711 | 2008-04-15 05:50:00 | Sure I have a decent gaming rig, but far from the best with a single OC 8800GT and C2D at 3.3gig. Maybe 1% of gamers out of "ALL" PC gamers are running somthing tangibly better with Crossfire or SLi. Would you feel better if I said 99% of gamers are better off running XP over Vista for gaming? I guess thats probably the more accurate statement. Perhaps I would feel better if you said XP is better for users that DONT have SLI GTX's or better, and 4GB of RAM and whatever clocked Quad core....:-) I dont want to burst your bubble mate, but a 88GT OC is far from tangibly close to SLI\Crossfire rigs. That 1% must be quiet alot really because there are an awful lot of threads from users of Crossfire\SLI Rigs on American Forums, and guess what, many of them use Vista x64. I guess I'm getting sick of people arguing how crap Vista is, when really, it is a better O/S than XP by far, which is what I have been trying to say all along. So thats my lot....thank-you for listening.:2cents: |
SolMiester (139) | ||
| 657712 | 2008-04-15 06:42:00 | Yeah, it [Vista] might be the better OS but performance wise, it isn't showing (yet) in our games. It's just normal with all M$ products though isn't it? Something gets released, it's far worse/impractical/slower/buggy than the previous version and is not taken up by vast majority. M$ discountinues (or announces discontinuation to come) support for previous perfectly working versions in attempt to force people to take it up. Eventually the 'new' OS catches up but this is usually years after its release (like 2+ years) and finally overtakes the previous version, only at this stage to be discountinued and replaced by a newer more buggy version. It's a deathly cycle. Has everyone forgotten about Win XP release? I only even bothered to update my main pc from '98 to XP when SP2 came out. The iron in period is always chaotic, older hardware doesn't work, many games don't work properly if at all, newer games advertised as made for new OS actually run better on previous version, etc. The answer should go something along the lines of .. 32bit Win XP for now, unless you want heaps of RAM/SLI/X-fire config (in which case you should also make sure you are getting a decent motherboard which will be able to use the amount of Ram you intend on installing). A year later, Vista should be showing its true colours. |
Deathwish (143) | ||
| 657713 | 2008-04-15 06:54:00 | I guess what it comes down to is XP is fine for a mid-high range gaming system, but Vista x64 for SLI\Crossfire rig for top end! | SolMiester (139) | ||
| 657714 | 2008-04-15 10:29:00 | Actually, two years from now we could quiet well be seeing the release of the next version of windows, rather than 6-years after XP like Vista was. There is already major development to "trim" the OS back, as without a doubt the size of the OS is pretty much everybodies main dog of the OS. Following that theory, by then a new OS will well quite possibly be out and it'll be slimmer / newer / better performing. My 2c anyways ;) Some reading: www.siliconrepublic.com news.google.co.nz |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 657715 | 2008-04-15 10:34:00 | Actually, two years from now we could quiet well be seeing the release of the next version of windows, rather than 6-years after XP like Vista was. There is already major development to "trim" the OS back, as without a doubt the size of the OS is pretty much everybodies main dog of the OS. Following that theory, by then a new OS will well quite possibly be out and it'll be slimmer / newer / better performing. My 2c anyways ;) Our IT Director said one of his mates @ MS NZ said Vista is done!, Windows 7 has been bought forward to Q1\Q2 2009!!! Its probably already been said, however a 2 yr O/S life!?, whats with that, MS must be the richest company is the world, why do they feels the need to keep rolling out O/s's...... Its a pity you cant just buy a 5-10 yr license for a MS O/S, chance or upgrade as you like just like Enterprise Agreements |
SolMiester (139) | ||
| 657716 | 2008-04-15 10:45:00 | Our IT Director said one of his mates @ MS NZ said Vista is done!, Windows 7 has been bought forward to Q1\Q2 2009!!! Knowing MS, it will probably be delayed, at least once. |
qazwsxokmijn (102) | ||
| 657717 | 2008-04-15 12:55:00 | 2yrs is long-life by a lot of todays standards.. look at Linux / MacOS for example A new Ubuntu Linux every 6 months. Granted its playing catch-up in a lot of ways, but damn they've come a LONG way in the last 24 months for sure! Imagine what would happen if MS had a 1yr release cycle.. sure things would be TOTALLY different.. but I wonder what would be acheived in that time-frame, rather than just service-pack patches... Food for thought ;) |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 657718 | 2008-04-15 21:51:00 | Perhaps I would feel better if you said XP is better for users that DONT have SLI GTX's or better, and 4GB of RAM and whatever clocked Quad core....:-) I dont want to burst your bubble mate, but a 88GT OC is far from tangibly close to SLI\Crossfire rigs. That 1% must be quiet alot really because there are an awful lot of threads from users of Crossfire\SLI Rigs on American Forums, and guess what, many of them use Vista x64. I guess I'm getting sick of people arguing how crap Vista is, when really, it is a better O/S than XP by far, which is what I have been trying to say all along. So thats my lot....thank-you for listening.:2cents: ROTFL You are hard to respond to without flaming, but I will try hard. I said "I have a decent gaming rig, but far from the best" what bubble do you think you are bursting? (thats a cut and paste quote BTW). It is well known only a very small percentage of PC's have even medium little own high end GPU's, even gaming rigs are only around 10% for high end GPU's. This link is Nov07, and pretty much excludes 8800GT,3870's, 8800GTS(G92) which have been very popular amongst enthusiast.etc, however gives you a rough idea. Remember you are in a hardware forum and likely to find a concentration of enthusiasts. www.steampowered.com (haha eat my shorts), I would suggest my guess of 1% "better" than a 8800GT O/C is pretty much right on the money, I would stretch to 5% if you twisted my arm, the 8800GTS has sold decent volume for example, either way your Vista hardware argument takes a hit. Vista is NOT crap, it IS currently slower than XP for gaming for 95% of people (see I am flexible lol), due to reason already covered, if you can't accept that then bad luck :) Actually On the "very" top rigs XP is STILL overall faster anyway (currently), so its a stupid argument. . |
Battleneter2 (9361) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | |||||