What OS do you game on? (second attempt)

[neiroatopelcc]

Second attempt. Something went wrong with the first one. Sorry bout that. Too bad I ain't permitted to delete or repair the broken poll.

Anyhow - what system are you gaming on?

 

[purplerat]

You probably could have consolidated everything but XP32, Vista and 7 into an "other" category.

Anyways I'm still on Vista64 waiting for some incentive to switch to 7. But I'm mostly interested in seeing how many XP holdouts there still are. Man they were a rabid bunch a couple of years ago when ever anybody suggested anything beyond XP was good for gaming (namely Vista).

 

[JDV28]

I would prefer to game on XP because it is still the fastest OS around (fact) but it doesnt do everything i want like win7 64 does. so win7 it is.

 

[neiroatopelcc]

I would prefer to game on XP because it is still the fastest OS around (fact) but it doesnt do everything i want like win7 64 does. so win7 it is.

True as long as you are not using an old phenom (better task scheduling in vista) or more than 4gb memory (file cache mangement in win 7 owns with 12gb memory). Also to me it seems win 7 does a better job at handling serveral heavy applications at once (like wow and burnout paradise running simultanously) than xp. But yes for only a single game xp is better.

 

[purplerat]

I would prefer to game on XP because it is still the fastest OS around (fact) but it doesnt do everything i want like win7 64 does. so win7 it is.

That's a bit too broad of a statement to simply declare as fact.

 

[neiroatopelcc]

That's a bit too broad of a statement to simply declare as fact.

But he's right as far as benchmarks go. They don't account for upcomming games with multicore support and ability to use more than 2gb memory though, nor do they consider using more apps at once or how performance on xp degrades badly after you've installed the 90 patches you need AFTER xp sp3

 

[JDV28]

Yup, i remember an article not too long ago that shocked all the vista users saying that XP is still the fastest OS, i know its broad, but in terms of benchmarks, it wins. It is old now and im sure microsoft is trying to sweep XP and vista under the carpet now.

 

[strangestranger]

Vista here, no real need to upgrade to win7.

 

[nrnx]

Win7 64bit. Upgraded when they had their get Win7 for 49.99 promotion @ amazon.com

 

[purplerat]

But he's right as far as benchmarks go. They don't account for upcomming games with multicore support and ability to use more than 2gb memory though, nor do they consider using more apps at once or how performance on xp degrades badly after you've installed the 90 patches you need AFTER xp sp3

Really? I remember looking at a lot of bench marks some while ago just between Vista and XP and in real world gaming it was mixed and depended on the game and settings. I just looked up some more recent test comparing 7 as well and it's still mixed.

http://www.winmatrix.com/forums/index.php?/topic/24632-gaming-performance-windows-7-vs-vista-vs-xp
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/windows_7_gaming_performance/page6.asp

 

[number13]

I have 7Ultimate, but I have a unique situation, my wife is Chinese, and it does multi language real good, but XP is still strong, real strong

 

[JDV28]

Really? I remember looking at a lot of bench marks some while ago just between Vista and XP and in real world gaming it was mixed and depended on the game and settings. I just looked up some more recent test comparing 7 as well and it's still mixed.

http://www.winmatrix.com/forums/index.php?/topic/24632-gaming-performance-windows-7-vs-vista-vs-xp
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/windows_7_gaming_performance/page6.asp

But remember, purple, Vista fails at everything. Those benchmarks are assuming that you kill 99% of the 5 million uneeded running tasks and that you work out a few of the billion bugs in the OS.
EDIT: that first link claims that win7 takes almost 70 seconds to boot. what BS is that? i have my laptop dual booting kubuntu and win7 and it doesnt even take 40 seconds and im inside of 7 and working. I dont trust that site now.

 

[purplerat]

But remember, purple, Vista fails at everything. Those benchmarks are assuming that you kill 99% of the 5 million uneeded running tasks and that you work out a few of the billion bugs in the OS.

I think you've been listing to Justin Long too much.

EDIT: that first link claims that win7 takes almost 70 seconds to boot. what BS is that? i have my laptop dual booting kubuntu and win7 and it doesnt even take 40 seconds and im inside of 7 and working. I dont trust that site now.

Check the date, they were running beta. Really I was more interested in the long since proven fact that Vista, for real world gaming performance, is on par or better than XP (and without having to kill process or worry about mythological bugs). I'm just taking it on faith that win7 is better than Vista, especially now that it's been on the market a while.

 

[gladiator_mohaa]

I got the 99 dollar upgrade on Amazon for the Win 7 64bit pro. I love the OS. Back when I had a Core2 duo I tried Vista and had a serious performance drop. I hated it and went right back to XP. Then when I got my I7 i went with Vista for obvious reasons of no quad core support in XP but was never happy with Vista even with the power of my I7. With 7 though...what a change for the better and ya just gota love the new task bar!

 

[mi1ez]

But remember, purple, Vista fails at everything. Those benchmarks are assuming that you kill 99% of the 5 million uneeded running tasks and that you work out a few of the billion bugs in the OS.

That statement alone is nearly worthy of a direct "shut up"

 

[mi1ez]

Anyways, W7HP64

Upgrade was cheap, my PC was due a good clean, no point in going 32bit any more.

 

[Nemi87]

Win 7 64 bits. I'm really satisfied.

 

[EXT64]

Win 7 64 Enterprise here. Wouldn't have got it except I get it free through my school.

 

[jaguarskx]

Win XP.

I'm in the process of evaluating Win 7. Installed an old game on it just last night to give it a whirl (X2 - The Threat). Probably load a more modern game or two later on.

 

[Confused Stu]

I moved from Vista 64 to W7 64 at launch, simply because the update deal was too good not to. Step-son still has a gaming PC running Vista 64 and that's serving him fine.

Personally, never had a problem with Vista (ever) and the only issues I've actually witnessed are people running Vista on minimum (or lower) requirements. Stick 1GB on Vista and it'll lag as much as XP does with 256MB! If I'm gaming I wouldn't use a graphics card, CPU or driver from 2002, so why use an OS from then? [end of personal opinion]

 

[ukcal]

I moved from Vista 64 to W7 64 at launch, simply because the update deal was too good not to. Step-son still has a gaming PC running Vista 64 and that's serving him fine.

Personally, never had a problem with Vista (ever) and the only issues I've actually witnessed are people running Vista on minimum (or lower) requirements. Stick 1GB on Vista and it'll lag as much as XP does with 256MB! If I'm gaming I wouldn't use a graphics card, CPU or driver from 2002, so why use an OS from then? [end of personal opinion]

Thing is software and hardware have different lifetimes and different paces of being replaced by a superior product.

Going back to the forum topic, I'm still on XP Pro, gaming like hell and with no intention of going up to 7. Not because I'm stubborn, but partly because I don't want the hassle of installing god knows how many games and their patches again, but also because I can't see any "real" reason to. Not really any "killer" features. I mean yeah, it looks nicer, but at the end of the day, if my computer does all I want it to, looking nice is not a necessity, particularly at the expense of my resources.

No doubt there will be some disagreements here though.

 

[JDV28]

^ +1 man.

 

[purplerat]

Thing is software and hardware have different lifetimes and different paces of being replaced by a superior product.

Going back to the forum topic, I'm still on XP Pro, gaming like hell and with no intention of going up to 7. Not because I'm stubborn, but partly because I don't want the hassle of installing god knows how many games and their patches again, but also because I can't see any "real" reason to. Not really any "killer" features. I mean yeah, it looks nicer, but at the end of the day, if my computer does all I want it to, looking nice is not a necessity, particularly at the expense of my resources.

No doubt there will be some disagreements here though.

If that's what you currently have and you're happy with it then it makes sense. That's the way I feel about switching from Vista to 7. I got Vista at release for specific reasons but have no reason right now to upgrade so I'll wait until I have a reason. What I don't understand are people who build new systems and choose XP (assuming they have a choice and there are no special circumstances) for gaming because they have antiquated ideas about OSs and gaming. The one that gets me is people who still think you need to turn off every non-essential process or else you'll lose massive performance. It's a complete lack of understanding of modern computing hardware and software. I game on 3 Vista PCs and never worry about turning off processes including Steam, IMs, downloaders, security software or even other games and I get no noticeable performance let down (I have tried going lean to see the difference and it's not noticeable). But yet you still see people make comments like the one I just read in another thread where somebody claimed to keep their gaming PC offline to avoid any additional resource usage. I don't care much for OS fanboism but I do like to educate people on how computers actually work especially when it comes to gaming

 

[EXT64]

If you are referring to my post (in which I said something like that somewhere (about the AntiV Software)) I misspoke. I should have said I keep it offline so (a) I don't even have to think about viruses and (b) because the AntiV software I use does something funky to the registry (it grabs my user profile and doesn't give it back to Win7 when shutting down, sometimes resulting in a failed login on reboot). But anyway, I agree completely with you on resource usage. I have seen many times that although Win7/Vista may grab a lot (say 30% of 4GB) of ram at startup, as soon as something needs it the OS happily gives it up.

 

[purplerat]

If you are referring to my post (in which I said something like that somewhere (about the AntiV Software)) I misspoke. I should have said I keep it offline so (a) I don't even have to think about viruses and (b) because the AntiV software I use does something funky to the registry (it grabs my user profile and doesn't give it back to Win7 when shutting down, sometimes resulting in a failed login on reboot). But anyway, I agree completely with you on resource usage. I have seen many times that although Win7/Vista may grab a lot (say 30% of 4GB) of ram at startup, as soon as something needs it the OS happily gives it up.

Actually I was referring to the guy who posted right after you who cited wanting "No internet and no networks running in the background.". I'm not trying to single anybody out because it's an argument that is made so often that I can understand why a lot of people accept it as truth. It's particularly prevalent in anti-Steam discussions; the idea being that the combination of the Steam app and auto updates of other games will actually impact gameplay performance.

There is a great irony about what you pointed out about Vista/Win7 using so much resources but easily offloading. What happened when Vista came out is that the OS's need for high specs - but playing nice with other resource hungry apps - is that it drove up the minimum specs for general computing. While I can understand why the average/low end user wouldn't and didn't like that, it was actually a great thing for gamers who were already using high end specs. That's because it narrowed the gap between minimum specs and gaming specs both making PC gaming cheaper (hardware wise) and bringing PC gaming closer to the mainstream. Today's entry level PC is really just a $75 GPU away from being a decent gaming rig where as pre-Vista RAM, CPU, HDD, and GPU of entry level machines were to low for gaming.