Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Windows XP for gaming?

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
December 13, 2010 8:42:54 PM

So I decided to go with Windows XP Professional instead of spending the extra $30 on Windows 7. A friend of mine pointed out to me how much RAM that Vista and Windows 7 consumes in comparison to XP, so I thought that I might as well devote more RAM to my gaming instead of my operating system.

Is XP Professional good for gaming, though? I have been reading that it is much better. And when the extended support ends for XP in June of 2014, I will then upgrade... but until then, what's the point in getting Windows 7 when I could get an operating system for $30 cheaper and play my games much more smoothly?

More about : windows gaming

December 13, 2010 9:35:51 PM



My problem with M$ is that they always put something in a new operating system to hopefully make it worth it to upgrade... well, except ME & Vista.

If your games are made to run on XP, go for it. Be aware that future games may demand the upgrade to run and then you have a problem. If you run sophisticated programs like Adobe products, your need of an upgrade will come sooner than you think. The game writers aren't stupid, they know there are still millions of XP machines out there so they will keep you playing for a long time, but not forever.
You might get by until Windows 8? comes along.

As far as XP being a better game player... that's not qualified anymore. Remember XP is locked into DirectX 9 at best and so you'll miss a few features of DX 11.
m
0
l
December 13, 2010 11:38:12 PM

I wasn't entirely aware of the RAM limitations on Windows XP. Only 4GB? I plan on getting to at least 8GB of RAM at some point in the future.
m
0
l
Related resources
December 14, 2010 2:24:48 AM

GoldenI said:
I wasn't entirely aware of the RAM limitations on Windows XP. Only 4GB? I plan on getting to at least 8GB of RAM at some point in the future.



There ya go... I don't whole-heatedly suggest XP anymore. Windows 7 seems to have learned a few lessons on what not to be from Vista. Maybe the extra $30 would have been worth it..

Just don't go out and buy the XP Pro "X64" version. Too many issues with ... everything.
m
0
l
a b $ Windows 7
a b 4 Gaming
December 14, 2010 2:46:07 AM

It's actually less than 4GB of RAM. I have 4GB of RAM in my WinXP PRo machine, but only 3.25GB is available.

Additionally, support for DX9 has started to drop. Battlefield 3 is still being developed (Beta now) and it has dropped support for DX9 and when released, it will the the 1st nail in DX9's coffin. Similar to how Oblivion marked the beginning of the end for DX8.1.

I have no issues playing games on my PC. DX10 was at best an arguably minor upgrade to DX9. The game that people seemed to have noticed the difference (however minor it may be) was Crysis.

DX11 adds improved tessellation. Basically DX11 artificially increases the number of triangles used to render an object. This adds details/textures to an object. An example would be water, DX11's creation of additional triangles makes water more realistic because it will have more waves or ripples.

Another example would be a cobblestone path. In DX9/10 texture and lighting is used to create an illusion that the path is made of individual cobblestones, but if you able to lie down flat on the ground in the game, you will notice that the cobblestone path is nothing more than a textured flat surface. In DX11, each cobblestone will have depth and you will see "hills and valleys" between each cobblestone and the mortar they are set in.
m
0
l
December 14, 2010 11:40:01 AM

jaguarskx said:
It's actually less than 4GB of RAM. I have 4GB of RAM in my WinXP PRo machine, but only 3.25GB is available.

Additionally, support for DX9 has started to drop. Battlefield 3 is still being developed (Beta now) and it has dropped support for DX9 and when released, it will the the 1st nail in DX9's coffin. Similar to how Oblivion marked the beginning of the end for DX8.1.

I have no issues playing games on my PC. DX10 was at best an arguably minor upgrade to DX9. The game that people seemed to have noticed the difference (however minor it may be) was Crysis.

DX11 adds improved tessellation. Basically DX11 artificially increases the number of triangles used to render an object. This adds details/textures to an object. An example would be water, DX11's creation of additional triangles makes water more realistic because it will have more waves or ripples.

Another example would be a cobblestone path. In DX9/10 texture and lighting is used to create an illusion that the path is made of individual cobblestones, but if you able to lie down flat on the ground in the game, you will notice that the cobblestone path is nothing more than a textured flat surface. In DX11, each cobblestone will have depth and you will see "hills and valleys" between each cobblestone and the mortar they are set in.

Interesting. Windows 7 seems to be the most logical way to go, as many of the outstanding issues people were experiencing with Vista seemed to have been fixed and polished with the Windows 7 OS. I have heard that it is a much more user-friendly OS (in comparison to Vista, similar to XP) as well as runs much faster and more smoothly. Much more solid OS these days compared to XP.
m
0
l
December 14, 2010 4:44:06 PM

I kinda look at Win 7 as Win XP 2.0.
m
0
l
a c 370 $ Windows 7
a b 4 Gaming
December 14, 2010 5:22:44 PM

For gaming, if a game supports DX11, it should run faster under that than if run under DX9 or 10. However, that is also dependant on the video card, so if you video card can't do 11, XP or 7 won't matter.

4 gig or 8 gig, does not matter to a game, I don't think there is a single game out there that is faster under 8 gig enough to worth the bother. 60 fps vs 62 fps, you can't tell the difference.
m
0
l
December 14, 2010 9:00:38 PM

I have a Radeon HD6850 - it can definitely do DX11.
m
0
l
!